N LAKSHMANAN Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. No. 277 of 1983, pending on the file of the J.F.C.M., Tiruttani. He is being prosecuted in the afore stated calendar case, at the instance of the respondent, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Tiruttani represented by its Executive Engineer, for alleged commission of offences under section 379, 381 and 406, I.P.C. The petitioner preferred Cri. M.P. No. 5457 of 1987 before this Court under section 482, Cr. P.C. to call for the records in the very same calender case and quash the proceedings therein, on the ground of inordinate delay in the conduct of the prosecution. Padmini Jesudurai, J., while disposing of the said petition on 3/6/1987, observed as follows: It is seen from the copy of the docket sheet that has been produced along with this petition that the progress of the trial is not as the interest of justice would require. The case had been taken on file in 1983 and as on date, only two witnesses have been examined. On several occasions, the complainant has been absent. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this harassment of the petitioner would call for quashing the entire proceedings. However, to give the respondent another chance to substantiate his complaint, a direction is given to the trial court that the trial of the case be expedited without any avoidable delay. With this direction, this petition is dismissed:

(2.) Thereafter, prosecution witnesses were examined and cross-examined, before the matter was posted for arguments. It appears that the respondent took a number of adjournments, to advance arguments. When the matter was thus pending, on 21.10.1988, the Advocate for the complainant, preferred a petition in Cri. M.P. No. 2923188, before the learned Magistrate, under section 311, Cr. P.C. praying for permission to recall P.Ws. 1 to 3 and to permit the respondent to mark certain documents, already produced in court. This petition shows that these documents had been ordered to be received by the court, after arguments. The learned Magistrate on the very same day passed a cryptic order which reads Allowed. It is this order that is challenged in this petition, contending that it is unsustainable in law and the learned counsel pleads for quashing of the said order.

(3.) I have heard Mr. P. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. I have carefully considered the ground urged, for quashing the impugned order. Section 311, Cr. P.C. permits the court at any stage of the enquiry or trial or other proceeding to summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined and the court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it, to be essential to the just decision of the case. It has been often emphasized that the very width of the power under this section, required corresponding caution, before exercise of the power. The only criterion for exercise of this power is that it should appear to the court that the evidence sought to be placed was essential to the just decision of the case.