1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated :11-03-2011 CORAM THE HONURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3264 to 3267 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1,1,1,2,2,2 & 2 of 2011 In Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.3264 to 3266 of 2011:- 1.S.Velmurugan 2.V.Baskar : Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 vs. The State represented by, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D., Tirunelveli. (Crime No.1 of 2006) : Respondent/Complainant In Crl.OP.(MD)No.3267 of 2011:- 1.S.Velmurugan 2.V.Baskar 3.Mariappan 4.G.Shanmugavel : Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4 Vs. The State represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID., Triunelveli (Crime No.1/2006) : Respondent/Complainant Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3264 to 3267 of 2011: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the entire records and set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District, in Crl.M.P.Nos.1019 to 1022 of 2011 in C.C.Nos.242 to 245 of 2007 vide his order, dated 18.02.2011. For Petitioner in all Crl.P.Os. : Mr.R.Anand For Respondents : Mr.S.Muthu Venkatesan in all Crl.P.Os. Government Advocate (Criminal Side) COMMON ORDER These petitions were filed by the petitioners challenging the orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.1019 of 2011 in C.C.No.242 of 2007, 1020 of 2011 in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 C.C.No.243 of 2007, 1021 of 2011 in C.C.No.244 of 2007 and 1022 of 2011 in C.C.No.245 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District. 2.The respondent/Complainant filed a petition under section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.11 for the purpose of marking certain documents annexed to the petition. That petition was ordered and aggrieved by the same, these petitions are filed. 3.Mr.R.Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondent filed the petition to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case and P.W.11 is not the competent person to speak about the documents and the first document mentioned in the schedule cannot be marked as it is only a report of the Officer after investigation was ordered. 4.He further submitted that even during the investigation, P.W.11 has stated that he has inspected the documents during investigation. He, therefore, submitted that if P.W.11 is allowed to be recalled, he will give fresh evidence and that will amount to filling up the lacuna. 5.According to me, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners cannot be accepted. It is admitted that the documents, which are sought to be marked were already filed along with the charge sheet and it is stated by the respondent that due to inadvertence those documents were not marked through P.W.11. Admittedly, P.W.11 is the Co- operative Sub-Registrar, Kovilpatti and he has conducted investigation and as per the evidence given by him, he has compared the 'A' Register with the Distribution Register and therefore, in my opinion, he is the competent person to speak about the documents sought to be marked and hence, it has been rightly allowed by the Court below. 6.Hence, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Court below. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioners to raise questions regarding the admissibility of the documents and it is for the learned Judicial Magistrate No1, Kovilpatti, to decide the admissibility of the documents, when questions were raised by the petitioners. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To, 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District. 2. Do through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin. 3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D., Tirunelveli. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai er Common order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3264 to 3267 of 2011 11.03.2011 TR : 30.03.2011 : 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/