JEYAMANI Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arguments of the learned Counsel, who appeared for the 4th Respondent, is not heard today. As per the earlier order of this Court, the Superintendent of Police, Madurai (Rural), Madurai District, along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Peraiyur Sub Division, Madurai District, appeared before this Court producing the Accused.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also produced the Petitioner PW1/De-Facto Complainant. From the remarks sought by the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, it is found that the LW1 in this case/the De Facto Complainant was examined on 18/8/2020 by the then learned IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. LW1 was examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 and M.O.1 were marked. It is found that the then learned IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, had issued summons to the witnesses LW2 to LW4. The said conduct of the then learned IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, who was presiding as Judge on 18/8/2020, is found unacceptable in the light of the procedures for Sessions trial. As per the Criminal Rules of Practice prevailing in the State of Tamilnadu, when the charges are framed by the trial Court, the trial is fixed with an approximate date by granting sufficient time to the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned to verify whether all the witnesses listed in the final report are available in the address mentioned in the final report. Based on such a report, the learned Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over the police station is directed to file a report to the Sessions Court. Based on such report only, the trial is finally fixed. Once the trial commences, there will not be fresh summons. One month prior to the actual date of trial, the trial is fixed by the learned Sessions Judge. Under no circumstances, the trial is adjourned. In the trial proceedings issued by the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to issue summons to the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned to the independent witnesses in the first two days of the trial, then the other witnesses as per the final report till the investigation officer is examined as the last witness. On every day, from the commencement of trial, continuously the witnesses are examined without any let or hindrance. Only in such circumstances, the Rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the witnesses shall be cross-examined then and there and the trial to be concluded within a reasonable period, is to be insisted. Here the learned IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, has committed grave error as though it is a civil trial not understanding the importance for the special procedures for Sessions trial.

(3.) For the present, based on the complaint of the Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1551 of 2024, the bail granted to the Accused is cancelled. The learned IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, is directed to issue warrant for production of the Accused by the Superintendent of Police through the Deputy Superintendent of Police or the Inspector of Police concerned as the PW1 had approached this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.1551 of 2024 stating that she was threatened when the case was pending against the Accused, who is facing the trial in S.C.No. 9 of 2019.