Court Cannot Be Silent Spectator When Accused Tries To Delay Trial Under Guise Of Fair Opportunity: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has observed that the court cannot be a mute spectator when the trial is delayed through attempts of the accused under the guise of fair opportunity. Justice G Jayachandran thus refused to entertain a plea for recalling witnesses. The court noted that the case was registered in the year 2009 and was yet to reach finality even after 15 years. The court thus opined that the petition to recall witnesses was only for delaying the process and would not be in the interest of justice. “This Court finds that the said order is absolutely in tune with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the provisions of law. The case which was registered in the year 2009 in Crime No.260 of 2009 not yet reached the finality even after 15 years. The present application to recall the witnesses, it is only delay the process further and will not be in the interest of justice. Hence this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed,” the court observed. The petitioners had approached the court against an order of the Judicial Magistrate IV, Coimbatore, dismissing the application under Section 311 CrPC to recall witnesses. The petitioners argued that the three witnesses sought to be recalled were crucial and if the cross-examination was not permitted, it would cause great prejudice. The State submitted that the recall petition was filed at the fag end of the trial. It was submitted that the first witness was examined five years ago and there was no reason to not examine PW6 and PW7 on the day of their chief examination. It was submitted that now, the petitioners have filed the petition stating that they have to examine PW1 before examining these two witnesses. The court observed that when witnesses are present, the accused cannot unnecessarily seek adjournments without cross-examining the witness. The court observed that the accused could not examine witnesses at his convenience and as per his will and wish. The court thus observed that the trial court had rightly rejected the petitions. Thus, finding no reason to interfere with the rejection, the court dismissed the petitions. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.B.Manoharan Counsel for Respondent: Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 220 Case Title: Imrankan and others v The Sub Inspector of PoliceClick here to read/download the judgment

Court Cannot Be Silent Spectator When Accused Tries To Delay Trial Under Guise Of Fair Opportunity: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags