ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner was examined as P.W.102 in S.CNo.58 of 2001 on the file of the Special Court constituted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), Cuddalore, wherein respondents 5 to 23 were facing trial for the offence punishable under Secs. 147, 148, 341, 323, 427, 506(2), I.P.C., and Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act, with regard to an alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 19.8.1998, viz., the members of Vanniar Community armed with deadly weapons and entered into the Dalit colony and brutally attacked the Dalit men, women and children, indiscriminately and said to have looted their belongings and caused extensive damage to their properties. 3. Mr. Rathinam, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even though 111 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution in S.C.No.58 of 2001, including the petitioner herein, they deposed only under threat, intimidation and coercion, but not voluntarily. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner seeks to set aside or cancel the depositions so far made by the prosecution witnesses, to direct respondents 1 and 3 disburse the relief amount to the victims in S.C.No.58 of 2001, to direct respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate protection to the witnesses and to further direct respondents 3 and 4 to take immediate steps to cancel the bail granted to the accused in S.C.No.58 of 2001. 4. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following decisions: , (i) Sunil Kumar Pal v. Phota Sheikh, (1984) 4 S.C.C, 533; (ii) Sudarsanam and others v. State, (1988)1 Crimes 228; and (iii) Unreported judgment in C. Thekkammalai and another v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government, Home Department, Madras and others, Crl. O.P.No. 14163 of 1993, dated 13.2.1995. 5. Distinguishing all the decisions, learned Government Advocate states that the ratio laid down in the above cases will not come in aid of the petitioner in seeking the relief, viz., to set aside and cancel the depositions made by the petitioner and other prosecution witnesses, invoking Sec.482, Crl.P.C. 5.2. The learned Government Advocate submits that there cannot be any objection to disburse the relief amount to the victims in S.C.No.58 of 2001, to which they are entitled to, as per law, nor to provide adequate protection to the witnesses in S.C.No.58 of 2001. 5.3. The learned Government Advocate submits that there cannot be any objection to disburse the relief amount to the victims in S.C.No.58 of 2001, to which they are entitled to, as per law, nor to provide adequate protection to the witnesses in S.C.No.58 of 2001. 5.3. The learned Government Advocate also submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the grant of bail to the accused in S.C.No.58 of 2001, he is at liberty to move the concerned Court for cancellation of bail, independently, as the respondent do not find any material for cancellation of bail. 5.4. The learned Government Advocate also brought to my notice that the depositions of the prosecution witnesses were made as early as 1998 and there is no proper explanation on the part of the petitioner for latches on his part in filing this application, nearly after three years, even if the said depositions were made under threat, intimidation and coercion. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 7.1. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the decision of the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar case, (1984)4 S. C. C. 533, arose against an order of acquittal, wherein the Apex Court finding that the trial being vitiated from serious infirmity, set aside the same and ordered for retrial. But, in the instant case, no finality has been reached so far. 7.2. Similarly, in Sudarsanam case, (1988) 1 Crimes 228, the rejection of the request of the accused, for adjournment to engage another counsel of their choice, we set aside and the proceedings pending before the concerned Court was transferred to another Court for fresh trial. 7.3. In Thekkammalai case, Crl.O.P.No. 14163 of 1993, dated 13.2.1995, the prosecution themselves had no objection for fresh trial. On the other hand, in the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, out of 125 witnesses, 111 witnesses have already been examined as early as 1998 and the petitioner, assuming was threatened, intimidated and coerced, should have approached this Court earlier and there is no proper explanation on behalf of the petitioner for the laches on his part. 7.4. Hence, I do not find any justification to cancel or set aside the depositions made in S.C.No.58 of 2001, as prayed for. 7.5. 7.4. Hence, I do not find any justification to cancel or set aside the depositions made in S.C.No.58 of 2001, as prayed for. 7.5. However, there cannot be any dispute in the proposition in Sunil Kumar case, (1984) 4 S.C.C. 533 , that no citizen should go away with the feeling that he could not get justice from the Court because other side was socially, economically or politically powerful and could manipulate the legal process as that would be subversive of the rule of law. 7.6. Therefore, in my considered opinion, if the petitioner’s grievance is genuine, he is at liberty to move the concerned Sessions Judge, invoking Sec. 311, Crl.P.C., who shall consider the grievance of the petitioner, in the light of the ratio laid down in Sunil Kumar case, (1984) 4 S.C.C. 533 , and permit the prosecution witnesses to be examined afresh expeditiously and pass appropriate orders on the application, after hearing respondents 5 to 23. viz., accused in S.C.No. 58 of 2001. 7.7. In the meanwhile, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to disburse the relief amount to the victims in S.C.No.58 of 2001, which they are entitled to, as per law Respondents 1 to 3 are also directed to provide adequate protection to the witnesses as well as other Dalits of Kattukoodalur village. 7.8. If the petitioner apprehends any damage at the hands of respondents 5 to 23, who are on bail in S.C.No.58 of 2001, they are at liberty to move the learned Sessions Judge for cancellation of bail, if he is so advised. This petition is disposed of accordingly. Crl.M.P.No.7477 of 2001 is closed.