Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 353 (MAD)

K. N. Srinivasan v. J. Dayalan and another

2001-03-19

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2001
ORDER: The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai in Criminal Revision Petition No.1 of 1999 confirming the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cheyyar in Crl.M.P.No.3873 of 1998 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Sec.311, Crl.P.C. for summoning certain document and recalling P.W.3, is under challenge before this Court in this petition filed under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. 2. The petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondents for the alleged offence under Sec.434, I.P.C. alleging that the survey stone installed by the revenue authorities in the land belonged to the complainant was removed by the accused and thereby they committed criminal trespass. 3. After examination of witnesses on both sides, the petitioner filed an application under Sec.91, Crl.P.C. to summon A-1 clerk of the Sub Collector’s Office to produce the Inspection report of the Sub Collector in order to establish his case. The said application filed in Crl.M.P.No.2063 of 1998 was allowed and the said A1 Clerk was examined as P.W.3 and he deposed that the said report was not available with him and the same was sent back to Tahsildar Office for rectification. He also deposed that the said report of the Sub Collector is in the possession of B1 Clerk of the Tahsildar Office. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.3873 of 1998 to examine B-1 Clerk of Tahsildar Office and to produce the Inspection Report in R.C.A.No.9548/B1/95 relating to the removal of survey stone installed in his land. This was dismissed by the trial Court observing that the said application under Sec.311, Crl.P.C. was a belated one and the same was filed in order to drag on the proceedings. This view of the trial court was confirmed by the revision Court. Hence, this petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. 5. I have gone through the impugned orders and also carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Though the scope under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. is so limited, this Court has no option, but to interfere with the order impugned, since it is felt that both the Courts below have committed an illegality. 7. The petitioner being the complainant had already filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.2063 of 1998 to summon the inspection report. Even though it was opposed by the other side, the said petition was allowed. 7. The petitioner being the complainant had already filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.2063 of 1998 to summon the inspection report. Even though it was opposed by the other side, the said petition was allowed. But, unfortunately, A-1 clerk of the Sub Collector’s Office was not able to produce the said document stating that it is not available with him and the same is available with B-1 clerk of Tahsildar Office. Therefore, the purpose for which Balakrishnan, A-1 clerk of Sub Collector’s Office, was examined on the order of the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.2063 of 1998 was not achieved. 8. Under those circumstances, the petitioner had to file another application in Crl.M.P.No.3873 of 1998 to summon B-1 clerk of Tahsildar Office to produce the said document. However, both the Courts below would mainly hold that the petitioner, instead of filing an application under Sec.91, Crl.P.C., had wrongly filed an application under Sec.311, Crl.P.C. at a belated stage. 9. This observation, in my view, is not proper. It is also to be stated that both the Courts below ought not to have come to the conclusion that the application under Sec.311 is only to drag on the proceedings. 10. According to the petitioner/ complainant, the inspection report of the Sub Collector is a relevant and an important document to establish his case. Therefore, this Court has got power to exercise the provision under Sec.311, Crl.P.C. at any stage to recall witnesses and also under Sec.91, Crl.P.C. to summon such vital documents. 11. As far as the document in question is concerned, there cannot be any dispute that the said document is so vital for the purpose of just decision of the case, in view of the earlier order passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.2063 of 1998. So, in order to make it available before the Court, the petitioner/ complainant filed the application under Sec.311, Crl.P.C. 12. According to the petitioner/ complainant, the inspection report would clearly reveal the accusation levelled by the complainant against the accused. That was the reason why the earlier application was ordered. Unfortunately, the said document was not produced by A-1 clerk at that time. 13. It is stated by the petitioner/ complainant that the second accused is working as Village Administrative Officer and because of his interference, the said document was not produced before the Court. 14. That was the reason why the earlier application was ordered. Unfortunately, the said document was not produced by A-1 clerk at that time. 13. It is stated by the petitioner/ complainant that the second accused is working as Village Administrative Officer and because of his interference, the said document was not produced before the Court. 14. In this context, it is appropriate to hold that an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner/ complainant by examining the witness concerned in order to produce the said document. 15. Therefore, the impugned orders of both the Courts below are set aside. The trial Court is directed to issue summon to the person concerned to produce the inspection report referred to in the application filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.3873 of 1998. 16. In the result, the petition is allowed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.6713 of 1999 is closed.