FREE LOOK INTERNATIONAL 98F ALANGADU IST STREET MANGALAM ROAD KARUVAMPALAYAM TIRUPUR Vs. SUBIKISHA SPINNERS P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the petitioners Counsel. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has stated that he has filed petitions to recall the witness P.W.2, who was already examined to elicit further particulars by cross examining him further, and so he has filed the applications in Crl.M.P.Nos.408 of 1998 to 411 of 1998 in C.C.Nos.5 of 1998 to 9 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2 at Dindigul. The learned Magistrate dismissed the applications on the ground that time limit had been fixed by the Sessions Court of completion of the trial. Such a view of the learned Magistrate is erroneous for the reason that no time limit can be fixed for completion of the trial as laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Abdul Rahman Anthuley v. R.S.Nayak, AIR 1992 SC 1701, wherein it was laid down that time limit for speedy trial of the criminal case cannot be drawn. As laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Mohanlal Shamji Son v. Union of India, 1991 LW (Crl) 284 that if the evidence to be obtained is essential for a just decision of the case, then it should be allowed. So also in the present case, the recalling of the witness P.W.2 is essential for a just decision of the case. In those circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the witness, P.W.2 must be recalled as his further cross examination is essential to a just decision of the case. Hence I hold that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2 at Dindigul in Crl.M.P.Nos.408 of 1998 to 411 of 1998 in C.C.Nos.5 of 1998 to 8 of 1998 dated 2.2.1998 has to be set aside, and the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.2 at Dindigul is directed to recall the witness P.W.2 and to permit the counsel for the accused to further cross examine him and dispose of all the cases as expeditiously as possible, and I answer this point accordingly.

(2.) IN the result the four Crl.Revision Petitions in Crl.R.C.No.170 of 1998 to 173 of 1998 are allowed and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2 at Dindigul dated 2.2.1998 in Crl.M.P.Nos.408 to 411 of 1998 in C.C.Nos.5 of 1998 to 8 of 1998 is set aside, and the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.2 at Dindigul is directed to recall the witness, P.W.2 for further cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused.