MOHAMMED ANSARI ALIAS ANSARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case is filed praying to set aside the order passed in Crl. M. P. No. 369 of 2004 dated 18. 11. 2004 in S. C. No. 2 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Judge for trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore and direct the trial judge to allow the petition filed under Section 311 of the Code.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the revision case, it is stated that the trial court in the earlier occasion without prior notice examined the witnesses accepting the plea of the prosecution and the witnesses tendered for cross examination as and when the petition under Section 311 of the Code is filed; that the principle accepted in that case of the nature 2000 witnesses were examined out of whom only 64 were recalled and the cross examination would be over next week; that the trial court appreciated the the role of Sessions defence oral Mr. P. T. Thirumalai Rajan reading the materials formed an opinion to recall 63 witnesses, who are the material witnesses and unless they are recalled, the defence would be prejudiced; that the trial court ought to have seen due to non-payment of fees to junior counsel, the senior had withdrawn his appearance, which resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the case is voluminous in nature clubbing 40 FIRs involving the life of 166 accused; that the trial court has not appreciated the gravity of offence and the non-examination of the material witnesses would cause great prejudice to the petitioner; that the trial court mis-conceited Section 311 of the Code; that unless the witnesses were examined just decision of the case will not be rendered; that the learned Judge erred in accepting the plea of the prosecution that the case will be delayed is not acceptable, as the accused are in prison for the last 7 years and therefore the petitioner prays to set aside the order in Crl. M. P. No. 369 of 2004 dated 18. 11. 2004 in S. C. No. 2 of 2000 by the Court of Sessions Judge for trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore and direct the trial judge to allow the petition filed under Section 311 of the Code.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/2nd accused would cite the following decisions respectively passed in (i) HOFFMAN ANDREAS Vs. INSPECTOR OF CUSTOMS, AMRITSAR (2001 Supreme Court Cases {cri. } 1488); (ii) SHAILENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR and OTHERS (2002 Supreme Court Cases {cri. } 230); (iii) RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. NARCOTIC CELL (1999 Supreme Court cases 1062)and (5) in MOHANLAL SHAMJISONI Vs. UNION OF INDIA and ANOTHER (1991 Supreme Court Cases {cri. } 595.