KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the de facto complainant in Ammapettai Police Station Crime No.227 of 2012, for the offences under Sections 302, 457 and 380 I.P.C. Thus, it is a case of murder for gain. During the course of investigation, the Police recovered some jewels and submitted the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam. The petitioner filed an application, under Section 451 Cr.P.C., seeking for interim custody of the jewels, which was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam and the jewels were handed over to the petitioner. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, trial began in S.C.No.57 of 2014 before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (P.C.R.), Thanjavur. During the course of trial, the petitioner herein was examined as P.W.1 and the jewels recovered were marked as material objects. At that time, it came to the notice of the Court that the jewels produced by the petitioner were spurious jewels. Therefore, the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (P.C.R.), Thanjavur, initiated proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was given a show-cause notice and asked to give explanation, for which the petitioner stated that he had handed over the jewels in as-is-where-is condition and that he had not converted the jewels. Being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the Trial Judge conducted a summary enquiry by examining four witnesses and recording their statements. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge, by the impugned Order dated 18.11.2017, has directed the Head Clerk to lodge a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur, as required under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Challenging the said order, the present revision has been filed.

(2.) Heard Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent - Police and perused the materials filed in the form of typed set.

(3.) Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (P.C.R.), Thanjavur, has given a finding of guilt in the impugned order and on account of which, the petitioner will not get a fair trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thanjavur. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the last Paragraph of the impugned order, dated 18.11.2017, which reads as follows: