TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y time for the petitioner to put forth his arguments with regard to framing of charges. In the result, the charges framed on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to put forth his arguments on the charges framed in the said case. Such an exercise shall be completed within one working day and such date shall be fixed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai on or before 31.07.2017. It is made clear that I have not expressed any of my views with regard to the merits of the petitioner's case and it is open to the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai to frame charges ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's arguments relating to framing of charges is a valuable right and denial of opportunity to put forth his arguments was violative of the principles of natural justice. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was only a day's time which they sought for on the ground that their petition before the High Court to recall the order dated 01.02.2017 which was listed on that day and was yet to be taken up for hearing and hence the adjournment was sought for. 5. On the other hand, Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned ASGI vehemently opposed the petition and stated that the petitioner had been protracting the proceedings from 1996 onwards and if any indulgence shown to the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt incident, the petitioner had sought for only a day's time for advancing his arguments with regard to framing of charges but the same was denied and the charges were framed on 19.04.2017. The prosecution had put forth their arguments only on 10.04.2017 and on the next hearing date (i.e.,) on 13.04.2017, the learned Magistrate had rejected the petitioner's request for adjournment and expressed his opinion that a prima-facie case was made out for framing charges. In my considered view, one day adjournment could not have caused grave miscarriage of justice but on the other hand, would have extended an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is needless to mention that no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained since the order goes to read that there were certain materials available on record to make out a prima facie case for framing charges under Section 8(1) and 9(1)(a) of the FERA, 1973 and in the absence of any specific observations in this Court's earlier order dated 01.02.2017 barring the petitioner from putting forth his arguments, it cannot be construed to be violative of this Court's order. 11. The other ground raised by the learned ASGI that this Court cannot exercise its inherent power in view of this Court's order dated 01.02.2017, is neither substantiated by a legal precedent nor through the facts of the case. This Court's earlier order in the Criminal revision referred to above, neither explicitly nor implic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai to frame charges against the petitioner, if such arguments are not advanced on the stipulated date. 14. In the instant case, though I have not attributed the delay either on the prosecution or on the petitioner, the fact remains that the proceedings had been dragged on for an unreasonable long period. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are of serious in nature and in order to secure the ends of justice, a speedy trial is undoubtedly warranted in the present case. In view of the same, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai is directed to conclude the main proceedings, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|