R.SELVAN Vs. STATE THROUGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner herein is an accused in Spl.Case No.4 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Dindigul. While P.W.3 was produced before the Court by prosecution and was examined in chief by the prosecutor and the respondent herein, the Revision Petitioner/accused filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.895 of 2016 on 20.09.2016, under Section 242(3) of Cr.P.C, for deferring the cross examination of P.W.3, till L.Ws.4 and 11 are examined in chief and the said petition was dismissed by the trial Court, referring the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vinoth Kumar v. state of Punjab reported in LAWS (SC)-2015-1-69.

(2.) Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed the Revision Petition to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order, dated 20.09.2016, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Dindigul in Cr.M.P.No.895 of 2016 in Spl.Case No.4 of 2014 and set aside the same and direct the trial Court to defer the cross examination of P.W.3 till L.W.4 and L.W.11 are examined in chief, in the interest of justice and fair trial.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contends that, when a set of witnesses are cited to speak about the same facts, the accused cannot be compelled to disclose his defence during cross-examination of one among the said witnesses, when other witnesses are not produced by the prosecution for examination on that date itself and if the prosecution had produced and examined L.Ws.2,3,4 and 11, who are cited to speak about the same set of facts for examination in one and the same day, the accused would not have chosen to file a petition under Section 242(3) of Cr.P.C., praying to defer the cross examination of P.W.3 and the statutory right conferred on the accused under Section 242(3) of Cr.P.C., should not be denied or taken away without assigning any valid reason and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not struck down the proviso to Section 242(3) of Cr.P.C.