B M GNANAVOLIVU Vs. V S THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein and the petitioner herein was convicted by the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8, for offences under Sections 409 r/w 406 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Against the said Judgment, the petitioner herein also preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, and it is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Chennai in Crl.A.No.110 of 2005. Pending appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C for additional evidence and to permit the accused to examine himself as a defence witness and also to mark certain documents. THE said application in Crl.M.P.No,62 of 2006 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred this revision.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both petitioner and respondent are brothers and both of them were looking after business in M/s.Meillur Products and M/s.Alcrafts and as a misunderstanding arose between them, the respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioner with false allegations. THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that before the trial Court, the prosecution evidence was closed on 08.05.204 and the case was posted for defence. During the period the accused/petitioner was held up in Bangalore to look after his aged mother, as she was admitted in the hospital on 14.02.2005 and latter died on 23.05.2005. In the mean time, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner/accused to prove his case through defence witness and documents, the trial Court had pronounced the Judgment on 04.02.2005.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 Cr.P.C before the appellate Court was withdrawn by his counsel without the consent of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner had engaged another counsel and filed a fresh application. THE learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that if the accused is not given a chance to examine himself as defence witness, a grave prejudice would be caused to him.