9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside orders dismissing petitions for cutting open seized bags and recalling witnesses for cross-examination. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed two criminal original petitions seeking to set aside orders by the Special Judge, (Economic Offences), Coimbatore, dismissing petitions under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner requested to cut open seized bags and recall witnesses for cross-examination. Allegations included discrepancies in witness testimonies and denial of opportunity to defend the case. 2. The respondent countered by detailing the search at the petitioner's residence, seizure of ganja, and subsequent actions under NDPS Act. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies and chemical analysis confirming the seized substance as ganja. The respondent argued that the petitioner's delay in raising objections and the lack of merit in the requests for cutting open bags and recalling witnesses justified the dismissal of the petitions. 3. During arguments, both parties cited relevant judgments to support their positions. The petitioner referenced a judgment emphasizing rectification of prosecution errors, while the respondent cited a judgment on the availability of multiple remedies in the absence of statutory exclusions. The trial court noted that there was no denial of the seized substance being ganja and deemed the requests for cutting open bags and recalling witnesses unnecessary, as sufficient opportunities for defense had been provided. 4. The trial court concluded that the petitions lacked merit and dismissed them accordingly. The court found that the petitioner had not been prejudiced by the denial of requested reliefs and determined that the trial should proceed without further delay. Consequently, the criminal original petitions were dismissed, along with the related motion. In summary, the High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the criminal original petitions seeking to set aside orders of the Special Judge, Coimbatore, related to cutting open seized bags and recalling witnesses for cross-examination. The court found that the petitioner had been provided with sufficient opportunities for defense and that the requests made were unnecessary, leading to the dismissal of the petitions. The judgment emphasized the importance of proceeding with the trial without undue delays, considering the lack of prejudice to the petitioner in law.
|
