RAMASWAMI GOUNDER AND MURUGAN Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, (RURAL) COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482, Crl.P.C., to direct the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore to give proper opportunity to the Petitioners to cross -examine the witnesses produced by the prosecution.

(2.) THIS is a case under Section 302, I.P.C. in which the prosecution has cited as many as 84 witnesses. The grievance of the Petitioners is that though copies of the statements of the witnesses made to the police have been given to the accused, yet it is not possible for the Petitioners to ascertain which witness is going to be examined on a particular day and that since certain amount of preparation is necessary for the cross -examination of each witness, the Petitioner's Advocate ought to be informed of the names of the witnesses whom the prosecution proposes to examine early. In support of his contention, reliance is placed upon the decision of a bench of Calcutta High Court in Sadasiv Singh v. Emperor , I.L.R.(1914) 41 Cal 299 : : A.I.R. 1914 Cal 834 wherein the bench held that at a Sessions trial, where the defence counsel applied, after the examination -in -chief of the first prosecution witness, for postponement of the cross -examination of the witnesses till the next day, on the ground of his unpreparedness, the application was a reasonable one which the Judge should under the circumstances, have allowed in order to enable the defence counsel to efficiently cross -examine the witness. But in this case or it cannot be said to lay down any procedure regarding sessions trial. That case only relates to the norms to be adopted in the matter of conduct of sessions trials properly.