SUBRAMANI Vs. CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners 1 to 4 in the Criminal Revision Case were prosecuted before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udumalpet in C.C. No. 386/2004 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A I.P.C., 406 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial ended in a judgment of acquittal dated 14.03.2007 and the Petitioners herein were held not guilty of any one of the offences with which they stood charged.

(2.) Aggrieved by and challenging the judgment of acquittal, the de-facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1 in the trial court, preferred a Revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C before the Sessions Court, Coimbatore in Crl. R.P. No. 78/2007. Along with the Revision Petition, she also filed a miscellaneous petition in Crl. M.P. No. 363/2007 praying for an order permitting her to adduce additional evidence. She also produced six documents along with the said miscellaneous petition purporting to be the documentary evidence in proof of which oral evidence was also proposed to be adduced. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 3), Coimbatore, to whom the said Revision Petition was made over, passed a common order on 29.05.2008, allowing the said miscellaneous petition, namely Crl. M.P. No. 363/2007 seeking permission to adduce additional evidence, setting aside the judgment of acquittal pronounced by the trial court and remanding the calendar case No. 386/2004 to the trial court for fresh disposal, after taking additional evidence. The legality and propriety of the said common order dated 29.05.2008 is questioned by the present revision Petitioners (A1 to A4) invoking the powers of the Revision of this Court under Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure

(3.) The arguments advanced by Mr. R. John Sathyan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, by Mr. K. Kalyanasundaram, learned Counsel for the first Respondent/de-facto complainant and by Mr. I. Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on behalf of the second Respondent (police) were heard. The materials available on record were also perused.