VIJAY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners herein are the accused in C.C. No. 754 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. The second Respondent herein is the de facto complainant, who is the wife of the first Petitioner/first accused.

(2.) The grievance of the Petitioners/accused is that after completion of the trial and examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, on 02.08.2010 and thereafter, the case was posted for defence. On behalf of the accused, arguments were advanced and written arguments were also filed by the accused on 04.01.2011. The further grievance of the Petitioners is that they filed the written arguments on 04.01.2011. But, the learned Magistrate had posted the case to 29.01.2011 for defence witnesses without taking note of the written arguments filed by the Petitioners. In the meantime, on 29.01.2011, the Presiding Officer was transferred and the case was posted to 04.02.2011. The new Presiding Officer, who took charge, was on casual leave on 04.02.2011. Therefore, the case was posted to 07.02.2011 for defence witnesses. On 07.02.2011, the new Presiding Officer, without hearing the arguments of the defence, posted the case simply for judgment on 09.02.2011. But, on 09.02.2011, the first accused alone was present and an application under Section 317 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed on behalf of the accused 2 to 5 and the said application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate and the case was split up. The first accused was convicted and with regard to imposing sentence, the case was adjourned to 11.02.2011.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners/accused submits that gross injustice has been caused to the accused by posting the case for judgment without hearing the oral arguments of the counsel for the accused. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the learned Magistrate has acted in a hurried manner.