MURALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 25.11.2008 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1928 of 2008 in C.C.No,5640 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-08 and consequently direct the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to recall P.W.1 for re-examination of the above case.)Questioning the legality of the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.1928 of 2008 in C.C.No,5640 of 2007 dated 25.11.2008, the present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C with a prayer that the said order should be set aside and the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai should be directed to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination with reference to a number of documents which the petitioners (accused) want to rely on.

(2.) THE submissions made by Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.I.Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) representing the respondent were heard. THE materials available on record were also perused.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate did not properly consider the scope of the power of the court under Section 311 Cr.P.C and that the court below has erroneously dismissed the petition with an observation that such petition could not be filed for filling up lacuna. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners facing criminal charges, should be given reasonable opportunity to put-forth their defence and that cross-examining the prosecution witnesses with reference to the documents which came into the hands of the accused subsequent to the examination of the prosecution witnesses would help the accused persons very much in establishing their innocence that the prosecution witnesses could not be cross-examined with reference to such documents as they were not readily available with the petitioners at the time of examination of P.Ws.1 to 4 before the trial court and that when they were able to get those documents, they approached the trial court under Section 311 in vain to get an order recalling P.Ws.1 to 4 so that they could be cross-examined with reference to the documents sought to be relied on by the petitioners to prove their innocence.