1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 03.03.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice C.T.SELVAM Crl.RC.(MD).No. 37 of 2011 1. M/s. Mercury Associates 2. Mr. V. Sivakumar ... Petitioners/Petitioners/Appellants vs. M/s Rupa Industries, No. 17-C, Pannaithottam Street, Kovilptti, through its Manager, Mr. M.Chandrasekaran ... Respondent/Respondent/Respondent Prayer:Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order dated 21.12.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin in Crl. M.P. No. 286 of 2010 in C.A. No. 118 of 2009 and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit. For Petitioner : Mr. R. Diwakaran For Respondent : Mr.S. Chellapandian, Senior Counsel for M/s. C. Kasirajan * * * O R D E R This revision arises against the order in Crl. M.P. No. 286 of 2010 in C.A. No. 118 of 2009 dated 21.12.2010 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin. 2. The revision petitioner having suffered conviction of sentence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 204 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kovilpatti, has moved an appeal in C.A.No. 118 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin. Therein, he moved Crl. M.P. No. 286 of 2010 seeking remission of the matter to the trial court for recording additional evidence or in the alternative permission to adduce evidence before the Appellate Court. This revision arises against the dismissal of such petition. In dismissing the petition before it, the lower court found repeated attempts at protraction of proceedings, enormous delay in cross examining the complainant before the trial court, failure to let in defence evidence for a period of one and a half years, contention of cheque having been issued as security not raised at Section 313 Cr.P.C stage that such contention really would not make a difference as the issue of cheque stands admitted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. Heard Mr. R Diwakaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.Chellapandian, Senior counsel appearing for M/s.C. Kasirajan for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge before this Court that while the proceedings before the trial court were at Kovilpatti, his residence was at Coimbatore and all the documents now sought to be brought in by way of evidence were left in the hands of his counsel. It was owing to a lapse on the part of the counsel before the lower court, who again was the counsel who had preferred the appeal, that these documents were not marked in the course of trial. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court, in Refiq and Another Vs. Mushilal and Another reported in (1981) 2 Supreme Court cases 788, learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the petitioner ought not to be made to suffer for lapses on the part of the counsel. He would also rely on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Another reported in (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 364 a case wherein the Apex Court had permitted recording of additional evidence after a lapse of six years towards impressing upon this Court that mere delay would not deter this Court from affording relief to the petitioner. 5. The case first relied upon was one where an ex-parte order of dismissal of an appeal came to be passed by the High Court owing to non appearance of the appellant on the date of hearing. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court found the dismissal of the application for recalling the ex-parte order of dismissal of the appeal on the ground of unexplained delay in presenting the application was unjustified. The case second relied upon came about in circumstances where a prosecution case would have been undone owing to a technical lacunae viz., that while the opinion of the Mint Master had admittedly been placed on record it had not been formally proved. The Apex Court considered it necessary to remove the formal defect, as failure to do so would abort a case against an alleged economic offender. It was observed that ends of justice are not satisfied only when the accused in a criminal case is acquitted. The Community acting through the State and the Public Prosecutor is also entitled to justice. The cause of the Community deserves equal treatment at the hands of the court in the discharge of its judicial functions. 6. Finding that the decisions cited would not aid the petitioner in any way, the attention of the learned counsel had been drawn to the limited scope of revisional powers. The learned counsel would inform that in the interests of justice, a final opportunity may be afforded to the petitioner and the requisite process may be directed to be fulfilled within a prescribed time frame. Though this Court is of the view that the facts that present themselves do not merit interference in exercise of powers of revision, this Court perused the documents which are intended to be put up by way of additional evidence towards satisfying itself if they would in any manner advance the case of the petitioner. Such documents are a Telegram issued by the petitioner, notices on either side and a ledger extract of the petitioner. 7. We do not find anything in the said documents which would aid in establishing the defence of there being no liability of the petitioner to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 the respondent. In such circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the finding of the lower court and accordingly, this revision shall stand dismissed. Consequently, connected MP is closed. SD/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court NO.1, Tuticorin 2.The Judicial Magistrate NO.I, Kovilpatti +1 CC TO M/S C.KASIRAJAN, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 11231 +1 CC TO M/S R. DIWAHARAN, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 11130 Crl.RC.(MD).No. 37 of 2011 03.03.2011 ses PAM 09.04.2011/5C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/