N VIJAYAKUMARI Vs. SUNDARARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in C. C. No. 1 of 2000 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kotagiri, Nilgiris District, is the revision petitioner herein.

(2.) THE grievance of the revision petitioner is that when C. C. No. 1 of 2000 was posted for trial on 9. 2. 1995, P. W. 1 was examined in part. But on the subsequent hearings P. W. 1 failed to appear, He had filed an application to condone his absence under Section 317 of Cr. P. C. According to the learned trial judge, no acceptable reasoning given for condoning his absence. While dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner under Section 317 of Cr. P. C. , the learned trial judge has also dismissed the case (C. C. No. 1 of 2000) preferred by P. W. 1 and has acquitted the accused under Section 249 of Cr. P. C.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner Ms. S. Nishila Vani and the learned counsel Mr. Sathiyamohan appearing for R1, R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7 and considered their respective submissions. A reading of the order of the learned trial judge dated 17. 2. 2005 will go to show that without giving an opportunity to the complainant P. W. 1, the learned trial judge has dismissed the case, which in my view is not proper. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner undertook to produce P. W. 1 before the trial Court on 20. 8. 2007. On such appearance of P. W. 1 on 20. 8. 2007 both the chief examination and cross examination shall be completed on the sameday.