S JAYAKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no representation for the petitioner. After getting the Criminal Original Petition admitted and interim stay of the proceedings before the trial court, the petitioner had chosen to drag on the matter for more than three years. Having not chosen to evince interest in having the matter argued, paving the way for an order being pronounced on merit, in the past on many occasions, either there was absence of representation or representation simply seeking adjournments. Having noted the above attitude of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court, on 16.07.2010 itself, while granting an adjournment on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, made an observation that no further request for adjournment would be entertained. However, subsequent thereto, on three occasions, this court showed indulgence and granted adjournments at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Today, the counsel is absent and no arrangement has been made to make a representation on behalf of the petitioner. The above said particulars will make it clear that the petitioner does not have genuine interest to have the case concluded at the earliest point of time. If any more indulgence is shown, it shall amount to the court being a party to the dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioner to protract the trial of the criminal case, which has been stayed in this petition. THEREfore, this court, deems it fit to pass an order after hearing the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) representing the respondent even in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) AFTER hearing the arguments advanced by Mr.R.Muniapparaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) representing the respondent and after perusing the records, this court passes the following order.

(3.) SECTION 164 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 reads as follows:-