Skip to main content

'Accused Can Examine Witness' - Madras HC

Observing that the right of the accused to have his witnesses examined or to have documents produced on his behalf cannot be denied, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has allowed a petition and permitted the revision petitioner to adduce defence witnesses, which was earlier denied by the Kulithurai Judicial Magistrate Court.

The case is that on August 6, 2004, one T Hentry, the petitioner/accused, borrowed Rs.2 lakh from one P Natarajan (complainant) to discharge a debt and on the same day, the petitioner issued a cheque dated December 6, 2004 for a sum of Rs. 2 lakh drawn on State Bank of India, Karungal Branch.

The cheque was presented on January 6, 2005 for collection in Tamil Nadu Merchantile Bank at Pallihadi and the same was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds.. Thereafter, on February 1, 2005, Natarajan issued a statutory notice to which the petitioner sent a reply disputing all the averments stated in the notice.

The complainant had himself examined as a prosecution witness in the lower court. Thereafter, the petitioner wanted to have defence witnesses examined and submitted a list of defence witnesses and filed a petition under Section 254(2) CrPC praying the court to issue summons to those witnesses.

The said petition was opposed by the complainant and was dismissed by the Kulithurai Magistrate on the ground that the petition was filed by the accused only to drag on the proceedings and since the case is pending for arguments it was not open to the accused to file a petition under Section 254(2) CrPC to examine the witnesses stated in the witness schedule.

Aggrieved by this the petitioner approached the High Court here. The petitioner submitted that as per the complainant’s statement, he borrowed the amount at the complainant’s residence but the fact is that he was in a remote village in Nellore in Andhra Pradesh for his treatment.

To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, the witnesses cited by him in the witness schedule have to be necessarily examined. The petitioner pointed out that the witnesses cited in the list are necessary to prove that he was in Nellore taking treatment from a private medical practitioner.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent pointed out that attempt of the petitioner is only to protract the proceedings and that witnesses list are not concerned with the case.

 Article referred: http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/Accused-Can-Examine-Witness/2014/03/11/article2102188.ece#.Ux8jl_mSzl8

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more