R.K.EMU FARMS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed as against the judgment of the Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore, dtd. 11/12/2020, in C.C.No.07 of 2014, in and by which, the first appellant firm and the second and third appellants being its partners were found guilty for the offences under Ss. 120B, 420 and 406 IPC and Sec. 5 of the TNPID Act and imposed the sentence as below:

(2.) Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is laid before this Court. When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out the facts that in this case, when the matter came up for arguments on 8/12/2020, the learned counsel representing the accused was not present and without hearing the arguments on behalf of the accused and without appointing any Amicus Curiae, the Trial Court proceeded to hear the learned Public Prosecutor and decided the issue and found the accused guilty. Therefore, in the absence of any counsel representing the accused and as there was nobody to represent the perspectives of the accused, therefore, the conviction is erroneous. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd.Sukur Ali Vs. State of Assam reported in (2011) 4 SCC 729, K.S.Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2013) 3 SCC 721 and the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subedar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2020) 17 SCC 765. He would submit that therefore, in view of the above judgments, it is the right of the accused to be represented by a counsel and without the counsel being heard, the decision made by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The learned counsel brought to the notice of the Court that there is yet another factor that on behalf of the appellants/accused, an application was filed under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C., to recall some of the witnesses, who are not cross examined originally. The Trial Court allowed the said application with a condition to deposit a sum of Rs.50,00,000.00 and later, the same was dismissed as the condition was not complied. The same was challenged by filing a petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court and this Court also confirmed the same. Even though the appellants/accused had filed an appeal by way of a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, before the same could be numbered, the judgment was pronounced and therefore, he would pray that the matter to be remanded back to the Trial Court with an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, who are not already cross examined.