A RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. ITO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the orders of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-1), Chennai, allowing the petition filed under sections 246(6) and 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the respondent-complaintant The proceedings against the petitioner-accused were initiated by way of a private complaint.

(2.) After the complaint was taken on file, the witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 5, mentioned in the complaint, were examined and thereafter, the petitioner was questioned. The learned magistrate finding that there is a prima facie case framed a charge and the trial proceeded. After completion of the trial, the petitioner was questioned under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. After the questioning of the petitioner, the prosecution filed a petition under sections 246(6) and 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, with a prayer that witnesses Nos. 6 to 10 mentioned in the complaint may be permitted to be examined. The learned magistrate allowed the petition, which is under challenge in this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned magistrate ought not to have allowed the petition filed by the respondent since by allowing the said petition, he only allowed the respondent in this revision to fill in the lacunae in the prosecution.