1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD) No.360 of 2011 M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 R.A.R.P.Annamalai ... Revision Petitioner/Complainant Vs. 1.Jeyakumar 2.Kadar Batcha 3.Kannan 4.Veerasamy 5.Sirajudeen 6.Rozarioa ... Respondent/Accused Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records with respect to order dated 05.04.2011, passed in Cr.M.P.No.959 of 2011 in H.R.C.No.1 of 2010 on the file of Principal District Judge Cum Sessions Judge Cum Human Rights Commission, Thanjavur and to set aside the same. For petitioner : Mr.N.R.Balaji Srinivaasan For Respondent : Mr.R.A.S.Anandraj ORDER By consent the Criminal Revision Case itself is taken for final disposal. 2. The revision petitioner is the complainant in H.R.C.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge/Human Rights Commission, Thanjavur. Initially, the case was filed in H.R.C.No.3 of 2000 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Human Rights Commission, Kumbakonam and latter on, transferred to the said Court and re-numbered as H.R.C.No.1 of 2010. 3. In the complaint, the revision petitioner herein made some serious allegations against the contact of the respondents. The trial of the case was commenced and witnesses on behalf of the revision petitioner/complainant were examined and the matter was posted for judgment. In the interregnum period, the petitioner filed Cr.M.P.No.959 of 2011 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall the witnesses examined on his behalf. In the petition, the word 'P.W.3' has been struck off and signed by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner before the lower Court and the learned counsel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 appearing for the respondents has made an endorsement that he has no objection. Taking into consideration of the same, the lower Court has ordered recall of P.W.1 and challenging the vires of the same, the present revision is filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/complainant would submit that though the revision petitioner wants to recall P.Ws.1 and 3, without his authorization, the lower Court counsel has strike off the word "P.W.3". It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/complainant that in order to strengthen his case, the recall and re-examination of P.W.3 is also essential and hence, prays to set aside the impugned order. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the case after arguments posted for judgment on 09.04.2011. Thereafter, it was adjourned to 25.04.2011, 29.04.2011, 10.06.2011 and 14.06.2011 on the pretext that the Criminal Revision Case is pending. It is also the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that with the authorization of the petitioner only his counsel strike off the word "P.W.3" and the learned counsel for the respondents before the lower Court also made endorsement expressing no objection for allowing the petition and consequently, the petition was ordered in so far as P.W.1 is concerned. It is also the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that since there is no infirmity in the impugned order, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials in the form of typed set of papers. 7. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of Cr.M.P.(MD) No.959 of 2001 would disclose that the oral evidence was closed on 22.11.2010 and except stating that recalling the witness is essential and justifiable, no other reason has been assigned by the petitioner. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, in the prayer column the petitioner has not stated that he wants to recall P.Ws.1 and 3. However, in the petition, it is stated that the revision petitioner wants to recall P.Ws.1 and 3 and the word "P.W.3" has been struck off by his counsel and the lower Court counsel for the respondent has also endorsed no objection for recalling P.W.1. The lower Court taking into consideration of the said endorsement ordered recalling of P.W.3. 8. Since the affidavit filed in support of Cr.M.P.No.959 of 2011 do not disclose as to which of the witness the revision petitioner wants to recall and also considering the fact that the learned counsel for the respondents has made an endorsement stating that the respondents have no objection for recalling P.W.1 and in the absence of any other tenable reasons, this court is of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 9. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: The Principal District Judge and Sessions Judge/Human Rights Commission, Thanjavur. COPY TO: The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to M/S.HALL ASSOCIATES,SR.No.18707 Crl.R.C.(MD) No.360 of 2011 M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 16.06.2011 sj PA/27.06.2011/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/