THUMBURAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above revision is directed against the order dated 17.07.2007 dismissing the Crl.M.P.No.703 of 2006 in Spl.C.C.No.84 of 2002 on the file of the Special Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.

(2.) THE petitioner who is the first accused in Spl.C.C.No.84 of 2002 is facing trial for the offences under Sections 420 r/w 109, 465 and 471 IPC. After examination of witnesses was over and just before the examination of the Investigating Officer, the petitioner had filed Crl.M.P.No.703 of 2006 under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to add P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.8 viz., Uche Gowder, Chinnasamy and Venkata Subramanium as the accused in the case and summon them to face the trial.

(3.) IT is further contended in the counter statement that the petitioner gave an application on 19.03.91 to the second accused Tr.Ayothiraman, Assistant Director of Khadhi and Village Industries, Tirupur for registration of the Society and the same was received by the second accused on 22.03.91. But even before that A2 directed the witness Chinnasamy who is an Assistant in his Office to put up a note for sending the proposal for obtaining prior permission from the Chief Executive Officer, Khadhi and Village Industries Board, Chennai for organising the Society; the second accused sent the proposal on 28.03.91 to the Chief Executive Officer and he attached a copy of the feasibility report with the proposal. The Office copy of the feasibility report was dictated by the second accused. The 6th witness Chinasamy who is an Assistant in the Office of the Assistant Director (A2) has prepared the note as per the instructions of the second accused as it was his bounden duty to prepare notes as per the instructions of the Assistant Director. But he did not know about the actual facts about the application of the petitioner and other connected facts.