VELLACHAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner has preferred the present revision petition aggrieved against the order passed in Crl.R.C.No.15 of 2000 dated 23.11.2000 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows THE respondent Police investigated the complaint and filed charge sheet against six persons only for the offence under Secs.147, 448, 324 and 506(2), I.P.C. THE revision petitioner as well as 5 other persons have not been implicated as accused in the charge sheet. THE Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur has taken cognizance and P.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined on 18.11.1996 and P.Ws.3 and 4 have been examined on 9.12.1996 and P.W.5 has been examined on 3.2.1997. THEreafter, the Public Prosecutor filed a memo under Sec.319, Crl.P.C. to implicate the revision petitioner and 5 others as accused in the case. THE revision petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.14 of 1998 before this Court and this Court directed the learned Magistrate to give an opportunity to the proposed accused and dispose of the case in accordance with law. Based upon that the learned Magistrate after giving an opportunity, dismissed the application filed by the respondent in Crl.M.P.No.1386 of 1997, dated 4.6.1999. Aggrieved against the said order, the respondent preferred revision before the Sessions Court, Srivilliputhur and the revision was allowed and the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1386 of 1997 was set aside. Aggrieved against this only, the present revision has been filed by one of the proposed accused in the case.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the learned District Judge has not appreciated the available piece of evidence since P. W.3 has not stated anything about the revision petitioner during the course of the investigation. However, only before the Court, he had implicated the revision petitioner. Similarly, P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 also have given contradictory versions. In fact P.W.1 admitted in the cross-examination that he was involved nearly in 25 cases. Even on that day counter case has been registered in Cr.No.18/94 as against the prosecution parties themselves. THE prosecution has not filed any application immediately in November, 1996 after the evidence of P.W.1 was completed. Only at a later stage the application has been filed. THE learned Sessions Judge has also failed to consider the decision cited on behalf of the revision petitioner. THE Judgment of the Apex Court is very clear in this regard. Based upon that judgment, it is not a fit case to implicate the revision petitioner as a accused and commencing a de novo trial. THE order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur is a well merited one and it has to be confirmed.