Court cannot remain silent spectator when accused tries to delay trial under the guise of fair opportunity: Madras High Court

Judge G. Jayachandran therefore refused to hear a request to recall witnesses. The court noted that the case was registered in 2009 and it was yet to be finalized even after 15 years. The court therefore held that the request to recall witnesses was only to delay the process and would not be in the interests of justice.

“This Court finds that the said order is absolutely in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the provisions of law. The case registered in 2009 under Offense No. 260 of 2009 is yet to reach its finality even after 15 years. This request to recall witnesses only further delays the process and will not be in the interests of justice. Therefore, this original criminal motion is denied. observed the court.

The petitioners had approached the court against an order of the Judicial Magistrate IV of Coimbatore, rejecting the application under Section 311 of the CrPC to recall witnesses. The petitioners argued that the three witnesses sought to be removed were crucial and that if cross-examination was not permitted it would cause significant harm.

The State argued that the motion to dismiss was filed at the conclusion of the trial. It was submitted that the first witness was examined five years ago and there was no reason why PW6 and PW7 should not be examined on the day of their examination-in-chief. It was submitted that the petitioners have filed an application 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 an adjournment without cross-examining the witness. The court observed that the accused could not examine the witnesses at his convenience and according to his will and wish.

The court thus observed that the trial court had rightly dismissed the motions. Thus, finding no reason to object to the dismissal, the court denied the motions.

Petitioner’s advice: MB Manoharan

Defendant’s lawyer: Ms. S.Udaya Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)