IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.08.2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN Crl.R.C. No.862 of 2005 N.Vijayakumari .. Petitioner Vs. 1. Sundararajan 2. Hali @ Sushella 3. Unda Nanjan 4. Rukiammal 5. Thirumal Prabhu 6. Lalitha 7. Lakshmi 8. Mitchiammal 9. Sarasu 10. Malliga .. Respondents Prayer: This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 17.02.2005 made in C.C.No.1 of 2000 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kotagiri, Nilgiris District. For Petitioner : Ms.S.Nishila Vani for Mr.SV.Srinivasan For Respondents : Mr.T.K.Sathiyamohan (For R1, R3, R4, R5, R6 & R7) Mr.K.Kalyansundaram (For R2, R8, R9 & R10) ORDER
The complainant in C.C.No.1 of 2000 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kotagiri, Nilgiris District, is the revision petitioner herein.
2.The grievance of the revision petitioner is that when C.C.No.1 of 2000 was posted for trial on 9.2.1995, P.W.1 was examined in part. But on the subsequent hearings P.W.1 failed to appear, He had filed an application to condone his absence under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. According to the learned trial judge, no acceptable reasoning given for condoning his absence. While dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner under Section 317 of Cr.P.C., the learned trial judge has also dismissed the case (C.C.No.1 of 2000) preferred by P.W.1 and has acquitted the accused under Section 249 of Cr.P.C.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner Ms.S.Nishila Vani and the learned counsel Mr.Sathiyamohan appearing for R1, R3, R4, R5, R6 & R7 and considered their respective submissions. A reading of the order of the learned trial judge dated 17.2.2005 will go to show that without giving an opportunity to the complainant P.W.1, the learned trial judge has dismissed the case, which in my view is not proper. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner undertook to produce P.W.1 before the trial Court on 20.8.2007. On such appearance of P.W.1 on 20.8.2007 both the chief examination and cross examination shall be completed on the sameday.
4. Under such circumstances, Crl.R.C.No.862 of 2005 is allowed on condition that P.W.1 shall appear before the trial Court on 20.8.2007, failing which the revision deemed to have been dismissed. The learned trial judge on appearance of the accused on 20.8.2007 shall give an opportunity to both the parties to complete chief examination as well as the cross-examination and to proceed with the case in accordance with law and then to dispose of C.C.No.1 of 2000 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
1. The Judicial Magistrate
2. -do-Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate