1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1387 of 2011 1. V.Dominic 2. T.Murugan 3. M.Santhakumari ... Petitioners Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Inspector of Police Prohibition Enforcement Wing Thuckalay Kanyakumari District ... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the learned Principal District Munsiff Cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, for speedy disposal of the case pending in C.C.No. 146 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsiff Cum Judicial Magistrate at Eraniel. For Petitioners : Mr. J. John Jayakumar For Respondent : Mr. L.Murugan Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This Petition has been filed by the petitioners to direct the learned Principal District Munsiff Cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, for speedy disposal of the case pending in C.C.No. 146 of 2005 on its file. 2. Heard Mr. J. John Jayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the petitioners are the accused in C.C.No. 146 of 2005 under Rule 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Spirituous Preparations Control Rules, 1984 read with 11, 14-A and 4(1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. He would further submit in his argument that on the side of the prosecution, four witnesses were examined as PWS 1 to 4 and after that, no progress on the side of the prosecution. He would further submit in his argument that the remaining cited witnesses are only official witnesses and the Lower Court has adjourned the case without any valid reasons. Therefore, he would request the Court to speedy dispose the case. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit in his argument that on the side of the prosecution, four witnesses have been examined and the remaining witnesses are yet to be examined. Therefore, he would request the Court that suitable orders may be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the final notice has been issued on 03.02.2010 and four witnesses have been examined and the remaining witnesses are yet to be examined under the summary procedure. Therefore, this Court is inclined to direct the learned Principal District Munsiff Cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, to examine the remaining witnesses in the case in C.C.No. 146 of 2005 and to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above direction, this Petition is disposed of. Sd/- Deputy Registrar /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Inspector of Police The State of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Enforcement Wing Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District 2. The Principal District Munsiff Cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court Madurai vsg SR : 22.02.2011 : 2p/4c Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1387 of 2011 04.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/