INICO INBARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused in C.C. No. 47 of 2006, questions the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kovilpatti, in allowing Crl. M.P. No. 4818 of 2011 filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, quite at a belated stage, nearly after four years, prosecution has filed the petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crl. M.P. No. 4818 of 2011, to fill up the lacuna. That has been allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kovilpatti. It is flawed.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the copy of the document sought to be so marked, has also not been furnished to the accused at the stage of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) However, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the said document has been produced in the Court long back and by mistake, they were not supplied to the accused and now, they have been supplied.