NACHAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred by Mrs. Nachal the petitioner herein, against the order dated 9-1-1995 passed in C.C. No. 230 of 1992 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, allowing the petition filed by Assistant Public Prosecutor under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code to implead the petitioner as one of the accused.

(2.) The case in brief is as follows :-One Seethai Aachi, the complainant has given her daughter in marriage at Amaravathi Pudur. She has friendly acquaintance with oneMrs. Nachal the petitioner who is a resident of the same village. On her request, the complainant Seethai Aachi gave a loan amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner. On 18-8-1990, at about 6.30 p.m., the complainant Seethai Aachi as requested by the petitioner, went to the petitioner's house and received back the loan amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Then the petitioner, accompanied the said Seethai Aachi till her residence and came back to her house. At that point of time, some persons suddenly appeared and threw chilly powder on her face and snatched the cash of Rs. 20,000/- from Seethai Aachi and ran away. Hence on her complaint, a case was registered, and some days later one Gopal, the accused in this case was arrested.

(3.) In May 1992, charge sheet was filed against him for the offence under Section 392, I.P.C. On 4-1-1995, PW-1, the complainant was examined before the trial Court. During the course of deposition, she mentioned that at the time of snatching of the cash by the accused, she called the name of Nachal. Immediately thereafter, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code requesting the Court to implead the petitioner as one of the accused, for the reason that her name was not only mentioned in the deposition of PW-1 but also in the FIR and statements under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code. On this basis, on the very same day, the learned Magistrate passed an order allowing the petition stating that PW-1 deposed in the Court that the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence that the petitioner's name is also mentioned in the FIR., as well as in statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C. The order of learned Magistrate is as follows :(Vernacular Matter is Omitted. . . . . . . . .Ed.)On the basis of this order, summons was issued to the petitioner. On receipt of the summons, the petitioner has resorted to file this revision before this Court.