Skip to content


M. Ramasamy Vs. The Inspector of Police Keelkuppan Police Station, Villupuram District - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCrl.R.C.No. 231 of 2016 & Crl.MP.Nos. 1571 & 1572 of 2016
Judge
AppellantM. Ramasamy
RespondentThe Inspector of Police Keelkuppan Police Station, Villupuram District
Excerpt:
.....reddy and another v. state of a.p. and another (2009) 3 scc 329 - brindaban das and others v. state of west..........kallakurichi made in crl.mp.no.2162 of 2015 in cc.no.247 of 2014 dated 09.12.2015. 2. the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would mainly contend that the petitioner is not at all involved in the above said cr.no.126 of 2013 for the offences under sections 286 and 304(a) ipc r/w.9b(i)(b) of the indian explosives act. there is no incriminating materials available on the side of the prosecution to file final report against the revision petitioner, without considering the above facts, the trial court erroneously implicated the present petitioner in the aforesaid crime number as one of the accused under section 319 of the cr.pc. the petitioner had not committed any offence, that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 09.12.2015 made in Crl.MP.No.2162 of 2015 in CC.No.247 of 2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi.)

1. The Criminal revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi made in Crl.MP.No.2162 of 2015 in CC.No.247 of 2014 dated 09.12.2015.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would mainly contend that the petitioner is not at all involved in the above said Cr.No.126 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 286 and 304(A) IPC r/w.9B(i)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act. There is no incriminating materials available on the side of the prosecution to file final report against the revision petitioner, without considering the above facts, the trial Court erroneously implicated the present petitioner in the aforesaid crime number as one of the accused under Section 319 of the Cr.PC. The petitioner had not committed any offence, that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. In the instant case, there is no material or whatsoever available to implicate the petitioner, the trial Court erred in allowing the petition. Considering the above facts and the relevant provisions of law, the trial Court erroneously implicated the present petitioner as one of the accused in the above said crime, the complainant and the prosecution had knowledge about the ownership of the petitioner and the quarry, ever since the date of the accident, implicating the petitioner as an additional accused is an afterthought, that too after examining PW1. Hence, the learned counsel prays to set aside the order of the trial Court and to allow the criminal revision.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) mainly contended that the trial Court after appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the materials produced therein allowed the case of the prosecution. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the trial Court and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court which are as follows :-

(i) (2005) 12 SCC 432 - Kavuluri Vivekananda Reddy and another v. State of A.P. and another and

(ii) (2009) 3 SCC 329 - Brindaban Das and others v. State of West Bengal.

The authorities cited on the side of the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

5. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the available records.

6. Admittedly, the present petitioner is the owner of the land in which the accident occurred and engaged in quarry operations after obtaining explosive license.

7. On reading of the materials and the order of the trial Court, it is clearly seen that the second accused is the licensed person to mine the land of the revision petitioner and carrying on the business for the past four years by engaging labourers from all parts of the Country.

8. It is useful to extract the relevant portion of the police report mentioned in the order of the trial Court which is extracted hereunder:-

"22.06.2013 TAMIL go

"A. A person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been charge sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.PC provided from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial. However, in so far as an accused who has been discharged is concerned the requirement of Section 300 and 398 Cr.PC has to be complied with before he can be summoned afresh."

TAMIL

9. On reading of the aforesaid order passed by the trial Court, it clearly reveals that there are sufficient incriminating materials are available on the side of the prosecution to presume that the present petitioner is also negligent for the occurrence. Further, the learned counsel submitted that there are sufficient materials are available on the side of the prosecution to array the present petitioner as one of the accused in the said crime. In view of the above, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case is an afterthought, that too after examining PW1 is not acceptable. From the above facts, whether the said allegations is true or not has to be decided only at the time of trial and after analysing the evidences adduced by the prosecution.

10.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no incriminating materials available to frame charges against the revision petitioner and prays to discharge the petitioner from the said crime, is liable to be rejected. Hence, the above arguments put forth on the side of the petitioner to discharge the revision petitioner from the charges is liable to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected. This Court finds there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.

11. In the result, the criminal revision stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //