Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4241 (MAD)

A. Marudhachalam v. A. Venkatachalam

2014-11-13

S.NAGAMUTHU

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.177 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC) No.1 @ Magisterial Level, Coimbatore. The respondent is the sole accused in the case. The petitioner has filed the said case alleging that the respondent has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. During the course of trial, after the 313 Cr.P.C., question was over on the respondent/accused, the respondent/accused had examined two witnesses as D.W.1 and D.W.2 on his side and thereafter, he has filed a petition in C.M.P.No.6694 of 2014 seeking to examine yet another witness as D.W.3. The said petition was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition. 3. This petition has come up today for admission. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have also perused the records carefully. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that C.M.P.No.6694 of 2014 was filed by the respondent only with a view unnecessarily drag on the proceedings and examination of D.W.3 would not serve any purpose in order to come to a just conclusion in this matter. 5. But, a perusal of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate would go to show that the trial Court has found that the examination of D.W.3 would help the trial Court to come to just conclusion in this matter. Further, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the trial Court has got absolute power to decide whether the examination of any witness would be helpful for the Court to a come to a right conclusion. 6. Though, it may be true that the said case in C.C.No.177 of 2012 (originally the said case was filed during the year 2009 and the same was trnasferred to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC) No.1, Coimbatore in the year 2012) has been pending from the year 2009, on this ground, we cannot deny the accused to have a fair trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this petition. 7. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this petition. At the same time, considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said case in C.C.No.177 of 2012 has been pending from the year 2009, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the said case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected M.P is closed.