9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Revision against orders allowing petition under sections 246(6) and 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the respondent-complainant. - Examination of witnesses Nos. 6 to 10 after completion of trial. - Application of Supreme Court judgments in similar cases. - Exercise of power under section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Analysis: The High Court of Madras addressed a revision challenging the orders of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate allowing a petition under sections 246(6) and 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the respondent-complainant. The proceedings against the petitioner-accused were initiated through a private complaint. The trial progressed with the examination of witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 5, followed by questioning of the petitioner. Subsequently, a charge was framed based on a prima facie case, and the trial continued. After completion of the trial, the petitioner was questioned under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. At this stage, the prosecution filed a petition under sections 246(6) and 311 seeking permission to examine witnesses Nos. 6 to 10 mentioned in the complaint. The learned magistrate allowed this petition, leading to the revision. The petitioner's counsel argued against allowing the petition, stating that it aimed to fill in prosecution gaps rather than address essential evidence. The prosecution had only examined witnesses 1 to 5, neglecting witnesses 6 to 10 without valid reasons. The petitioner had already been questioned under section 313 when the petition was filed, suggesting a move to rectify omissions. The court examined relevant Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing the necessity for essential evidence to ensure a just decision. It was noted that allowing the prosecution to rectify deficiencies post-trial due to their negligence could prejudice the accused. In analyzing the application of section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court highlighted the need for caution and essentiality of evidence for a just decision. Referring to previous judgments, the court concluded that the learned magistrate erred in allowing the petition to fill in prosecution gaps post-trial when the opportunity to examine witnesses existed during the trial. Consequently, the revision was allowed, setting aside the magistrate's order and directing the trial court to proceed according to the evidence recorded. The court emphasized the importance of exercising the power under section 311 judiciously to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in legal proceedings.
|
