1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated: 08/02/2023

CORAM

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN

Crl.RC(MD)No.134 of 2023

and

Crl.MP(MD)No.1951 of 2023

1.M.Sekar

2.S.Murugesan : Petitioners/A9 and A11

Vs.

1.The State rep., by

the Sub Inspector of Police,

Seevalaperi Police Station,

Tirunelveli District.

2.Subramanian

(R2 is suo-motu impleaded as per

the order of this court,

dated 03/02/2023 made in

Crl.RC(MD)No.134 of 2023): Respondents/Complainants

Prayer:- This Criminal Revision has been filed

under section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code,

to call for the entire records pertaining to the order

passed by the III Additional District Sessions Judge,

Tirunelveli on the petition in Crl.MP No.11671 of 2022 in

SC No.528 of 2021, vide order, dated 22.12.2022 and

consequently, direct the aforesaid Judge to eschew the

offending portion of evidence recorded in chief

examination of PW1 to PW3 referred to in the said

petition SC No.528 of 2021 pending on the file of the

learned Judge before the cross examination of the

prosecution witnesses.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambiselvan

O R D E R

This criminal revision has been filed against the

order passed by the III Additional District Sessions

Judge, Tirunelveli on the petition in Crl.MP No.11671 of

2022 in SC No.528 of 2021, dated 22.12.2022 and

consequently, to direct the aforesaid Judge to eschew the

offending portion of evidence recorded in chief

examination of PW1 to PW3 referred to in the said

petition SC No.528 of 2021 pending on the file of the

learned Judge before the cross examination of the

prosecution witnesses.

2.The facts in brief;-

The petitioners are A9 and A11 in SC No.528 of

2021. They are facing the charges for the offences

punishable under sections 120(B), 147, 148, 294(b), 109,

302, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. After framing of the charges,

the trial went on and as per the information furnished by

the trial court, so far 20 witnesses have been examined

by the prosecution in chief and none of them have been

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3

cross examined. During the course of the above said

process, several proceedings have been initiated by the

accused. First one is Crl.RC(MD)No.848 of 2022,

challenging the order that was passed by the trial court

in Crl.MP No.7324 of 2022. That petition was filed under

section 231 Cr.P.C, seeking permission of this court to

mark 9 documents and 4 witnesses as additional oral and

documentary evidence. That was allowed by the trial

court. Against which, the above said revision has been

preferred. That revision was dismissed by this court, on

12/09/2022 permitting the prosecution to mark two

documents and examine two witnesses. In respect of other

documents, the order passed by the trial court was set

aside.

3.Another proceeding was initiated by the accused

in Cr.OP(MD)No.18591 of 2022, seeking the relief to set

aside the evidence of PW1 to PW5, in the light of the

order passed in Crl.RC(MD)No.848 of 2022 and directing

the trial Judge to examine PW1 and PW5 afresh. In the

above said petition, the grievance expressed by the

accused is that before the disposal of Crl.RC(MD)No.848

of 2022, the prosecution examined five witnesses and they

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4

have given evidence regarding the documents sought to be

marked by the prosecution, which was rejected by this

court in that criminal revision. It is also seen that

the above said evidence are not part of the statement

recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. But however, the trial

Judge did not permit the objection and PW1 to PW5 were

examined in chief, till the disposal of the above said

criminal revision. The