JEEVA Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court underSection 482 Cr.P.C.,the Petitioner has preferred thispetition to set aside the order dated 12.10.2010 and madein Crl.M.P. No. 244/2010 in S.C. No. 140/2007 on the file ofthe learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track CourtNo.III), Tiruvallore and to direct the learned trial Judgeto reopen the trial of the case and to accord permission tosummon the witnesses cited in the Petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 244/2010 so as to enable the Petitioner to examine the saidwitnesses on his side.

(2.) The Petitioner along with 27 others has beenfacing charges under Section 120B, 148, 302, 341, 449 and 506(ii) I.P.C., in connection with the case inS.C. No. 140/2007 on the file of the learned AdditionalDistrict Judge, Tiruvallore.

(3.) During the course of the trial the prosecutionhas purposely withheld certain important materials andfactual issues to suppress the truth before the trialCourt. The entire episode in the background of the case in S.C. No. 140/2007 has been fabricated based on the casteissue and the officer who is actually involved in theinitiation of the case and in the investigation had somevested interest in the issue involved. Hence, adequategrounds are available to withhold the material facts andthe related evidences. The said suppression came to thePetitioner's knowledge only in the later stage. On thisbackground, the Petitioner had filed a petition inCrl.M.P. No. 244/2010 in S.C. No. 140/2007 on the file of thelearned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track CourtNo.III) Tiruvallore after invoking the proviso to Section 311 of Cr.P.C., to reopen the trial of the said case and tosummon the former Superintendent of Police of TiruvalloreDistrict Mr. S.P. Ayush Mani Tiwari to examine him as awitness on behalf of the defence.