R. DINESHKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Fifth Accused in S.C.No.73 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. Altogether, including the petitioner, there are seven accused in the said case. The trial court has framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 302 & 120(B) of IPC. As many as 71 witnesses were cited in the final report. During trial, already, 65 witnesses have been examined on the side of the prosecution and all such witnesses have been cross examined by the counsel appearing for the respective accused, except P.W.64. P.W.64 is one Shri.L.Venkatesh, the 2nd respondent in this revision petition. After the chief examination of P.W.64 [the 2nd respondent herein] was over, the petitioner herein filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.4188 of 2014 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. seeking to summon the 2nd respondent/P.W.64 as an additional accused so as to be tried together with the rest of the accused, who are already facing trial. That petition was dismissed by the trial court by order dated 10.03.2014. Challenging the same, the petitioner/A5 is before this court with this criminal revision petition.

(2.) The said criminal revision petition was admitted on 17.04.2014 and the same came up for hearing before this court on few dates. In the mean while, a petition in Crl.O.P.No.8102 of 2014 was filed by the First Accused Smt.N.Banu in the said sessions case - challenging the order passed by the trial court in Crl.M.P.No.3937 of 2014 wherein the trial court had allowed the said petition filed by the prosecution thereby permitting the prosecution to examine 11 witnesses in addition, who were not earlier cited as witnesses in the final report. Since both the matters were dealt with by two different Hon'ble Judges, on the note put up by the Registry, the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, by order dated 14.07.2014 had directed to tag Crl.R.C.No.425 of 2014 with Crl.O.P.No.8102 of 2014 and ordered the same to be listed before some other Hon'ble Judge. The matter was accordingly heard by the Hon'ble Judge and on 05.09.2014, the Hon'ble Judge recused himself from these petitions and directed the Registry to place the papers before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for listing the same before some other Judge. While so, Mr.S.Ruban, Advocate, who is the counsel on record for the petitioner in the present Criminal Revision Petition gave a letter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice requesting to list the criminal revision petition before the Hon'ble I Division Bench itself or before any other Division Bench. In the said letter, inter alia, he has stated as follows:-

(3.) The Registry accordingly placed the papers before the then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice including the above letter of the learned Advocate Mr.S.Ruban. The then Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice on 07.10.2014 passed an order directing both the matters to be listed before me as "specially ordered cases". Thereafter, the same were listed before me for hearing on 30.10.2014 and on that day, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, they were adjourned.