SEENUVASAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVENNAINALLUR POLICE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ulundurpet, the same was taken up on file in C.C.No.123 of 2009. After framing of charge, the trial was commenced, after examining P.W.1 to P.W.4, the 1st respondent herein filed the petition to implead some of the accused as Proposed accused/respondents 3 to 6 in C.M.P.No.3397 of 2009. After giving opportunity to both sides, the Magistrate dismissed the petition.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved against the order the defacto complainant has filed the present revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Magistrate has dismissed the petition on two grounds, first one is that the names of all the accused were not mentioned in C.S.R.Register, only two names of the accused alone were mentioned. Second one is that before Cross examination, this application cannot be filed after cross examination only if any materials are available to implead the other persons whose names were not mentioned in the charge sheet can be impleaded. It is against the principle of law and against the factual aspects, the register does not show any name of the accused. Therefore, the factual finding of the Magistrate is not correct. Further the Chief examination of the witnesses is sufficient and the Court need not wait till the cross examination of the witnesses.