RAMASUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision petition by a witness against whom it was decided by the Court to proceed under Sec. 319 of the Code of criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE essential facts which are relevant for the disposal of this case are as follows: A final report was filed by P. W. 13, inspector of Police, Tanjore, on 30. 6. 1976 to the effect that an offence under sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code appeared to have been committed by the accountant of the I. T. T. , Tanjore. THE Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, tanjore, took up the matter for trial and in respect of the said charge 13 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 83 exhibits were marked. 13 exhibits were marked on the side of the defence. THE accused was also examined under Sec. 313, of Cr. P. C THEreafter, it appears that the accused has filed an application that the petitioner herein, who was the Principal of the Institution at the time of the commission of the offence, should also be arrayed as an accused. That application was returned by the Magistrate, calling upon the accused to state the provision of law under which it was filed. Subsequently, on 25. 7. 1978 the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed an application praying the Court to invokesec. 319 of Crl. P. C, against the petitioner. He has not stated in that petition what were the elements on record which were incriminating the petitioner. It is not also known whether the petitioner was given notice of the said, application. It is true that under Sec. 319 of crl. P. C, the Court can even without an application of the Public Prosecutor, implicate a person other than the accused. THE Court passed an order on 25. 7. 1978 arraying the petitioner who was P. W. 3 as the second accused in the case, under Sec. 319 of Crl. P. C. Against that order Crl. R. C. No. 125 of 1979 was filed by P. W. 3. That revision petition was disposed of by this Court on 21. 11. 1980 and it was observed that the order was laconic and did not contain all the elements that it should contain and therefore the matter was remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal. THE trial Court took up the matter again and after giving P. W. 3 an opportunity of being heard, passed an order dated 11. 8. 1983 arraying again the petitioner (P. W. 3) as the second accused in the case. Against that second order the present revision is filed.

(3.) IN the result, the order of the Court below is set aside and the revision is allowed.