Nagammal vs Saravanan and 6 Others

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—This revision has been preferred by the first informant, against the judgment dated 28.8.1992 in C.C. No. 514 of 1989, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi, acquitting the respondents 1 to 6 u/s 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, in respect of the offence under Sections 148, 451, 447, 427 r/w 149, I.P.C. and praying for reversing the same.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of the occurrence took place on 6-12-1988, the petitioner gave the complaint to the 7th respondent/police, which was registered in Cr. No. 270/88 in Katchirampalayam police station and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed which was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi in C.C. No. 514 of 1989. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that the trial Court, even without examining any witness, acquitted the accused/respondents 1 to 6 u/s 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, merely because the witnesses have not been produced by the police on the adjourned dates.

Learned counsel strenuously contended that the order of the trial court is bad in law, in as much as, a Full Bench of this Court has already given guidelines in the case of State v. Veerappan and Ors. (1980 L.W. (Crl.) 187), wherein it has been observed that the trial Court cannot straight away acquit the accuse, merely because witnesses have not been produced and the Court must invoke the relevant provisions for taking coercive steps to ensure the presence of the witnesses, by issuing bailable or non-bailable warrants and only after all the effective steps as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure have been taken and exhausted, the trial Court is at liberty to acquit the accused in accordance with law. On the basis of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court, referred to above, learned counsel for the petitioner contends, the judgment of the trial Court is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside and the case has to be remanded back for fresh trial. I find some substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The order of the Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi, though referred to various dates, on which he sent reminders after reminders to Deputy Superintendent of Police and the letters to the Assistant Public Prosecutors, he has not mentioned what are all the steps he had taken as per the guidelines given by the Full Bench of this Court in the above referred case. It is very unfortunate on the part of the trial Magistrate, to observe in the judgment dated 28-8-1992 that since police did not take action for ensuring the presence of the witnesses, the Court has entertained an opinion that this case could have been a false one initiated by the complainant. There is no material available to make such observation, which is quite unwarranted. Though, I feel that the judgment of the trial Court is quite wrong, I do not propose to remand the matter for fresh disposal, since no purpose would be achieved by doing the same.

The occurrence took place on 6-12-1988. Charge sheet was field and the case was taken on file as C.C. No. 514 of 1989, in the year The judgment of the trial court was dated 28-8-1992, against which the petitioner has preferred this revision in 1992 itself. In the above situation, after the lapse of seven years, I do not think it proper to remand the case for fresh trial, in view of the fact that it would incur unnecessary expenditure as well as wasting the time of the Court. Even the Full Bench of this Court in the case referred to supra, while dealing with various appeals and revisions was not inclined to remand the matter for fresh trial, but merely pointed out the illegality committed by the trial Courts.

In view of the considered ruling of the Full Bench of this Court, though the trial Magistrate has committed some illegality in passing the judgment in C.C. No. 514 of 1989, dated 28-8-1992, I decline to remand the matter for fresh disposal except to point out the illegality. However, it is open to the petitioner, if permitted under law, to take appropriate legal action for the non-production of the witnesses against the persons responsible. With this observation, the revision is dismissed.