D. RAMDOSS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking direction to direct the learned trial Judge to receive the recall petition filed under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. in C.C. Nos. 2689 of 2018 and 1030 of 2018, respectively on the file of the learned Special Judge for CB-CID cases, at Egmore.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there are two accused in this case and the petitioner is arraigned as A2. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused being the officer in the defacto complainant/finance company, without inspecting and verifying the documents of the number of vehicles, recommended the loan amount to the tune of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the petitioner/second accused. It is also alleged that the second accused defaulted in repayment of loan and also sold out the vehicles, thereby caused loss to the defacto complainant company. On the complaint made by the defacto complainant a company case has been registered in Crime No. 13 of 1997 for the offences under Ss. 406, 420, 477(A) r/w 34 of IPC. Seven charge sheets were laid in the year 2002 and insofar as the petitioner is concerned two charge sheets have been laid in respect of 12 vehicles, before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai and both the cases were transfered to the present Court and re-numbered as C.C. Nos. 2689 of 2018 and 1030 of 2018. Though the charge sheet filed in the year 2002, the prosecution dragged the proceedings for the past 17 years. The petitioner has attempted to file petition under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C., however, the learned Judge refused to receive the petition on file, without number it. He further submitted that under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. the recall petition can file at any stage of inquiry or trial or other proceedings. Therefore, he prays to allow both the petitions.

(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that now the cases are posted for judgments on 18/2/2019 and at this stage, the petition to recall the P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 cannot be considered and hence the learned Judge rightly refused to receive the petition filed under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of these petitions.