Interfering too much in trial court orders won’t help, says HC
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Chennai:15.06.2019
The Madras high court has observed that unreasonable interference by it in the orders passed by the trial courts would only result in piling up of pending cases in the subordinate courts. Though accused have the right to a fair trial, it cannot be conducted as per their whims and fancies, Justice N Anand Venkatesh has said.
He made the observation while hearing a plea moved by M Vellaisamy and Justice K R Mayalagu, seeking to set aside an order passed by metropolitan magistrate for CB-CID cases in Egmore dated November 29, 2018, denying them permission to cross-examine certain witnesses. On earlier occasions, the petitioners had chosen not to cross examine the same witnesses.
Both the petitioners are facing trial for offences under sections 420 (cheating), and 384 (extortion) read with 34 of IPC.
After waiting for almost five years, the petitioner moved an application to crossexamine the witnesses, which was rejected by the magistrate. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached the high court.
“On one hand, this court is insisting that trial courts dispose of long-pending criminal cases and therefore, the trial courts are getting strict while dealing with recall petitions. If such orders are interfered in a casual manner by this court (HC), in a way, this court will also be responsible for the pendency of cases before the subordinate courts,” the judge said.
Therefore, this practice of treating petitions filed under Section 311 of CrPC in a casual manner and calling witnesses to the court for cross-examination repeatedly should be stopped, he said. As witnesses are generally hesitant, if they are repeatedly called before the court, at one stage, no one will be ready to appear as witnesses, Justice Venkatesh said.
Unless the courts are going to get strict while dealing with such applications for recalling witnesses, no solution can be found for the disposal of long pending cases and the docket explosion is going to continue to haunt the courts, the judge added.
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Chennai:15.06.2019
The Madras high court has observed that unreasonable interference by it in the orders passed by the trial courts would only result in piling up of pending cases in the subordinate courts. Though accused have the right to a fair trial, it cannot be conducted as per their whims and fancies, Justice N Anand Venkatesh has said.
He made the observation while hearing a plea moved by M Vellaisamy and Justice K R Mayalagu, seeking to set aside an order passed by metropolitan magistrate for CB-CID cases in Egmore dated November 29, 2018, denying them permission to cross-examine certain witnesses. On earlier occasions, the petitioners had chosen not to cross examine the same witnesses.
Both the petitioners are facing trial for offences under sections 420 (cheating), and 384 (extortion) read with 34 of IPC.
After waiting for almost five years, the petitioner moved an application to crossexamine the witnesses, which was rejected by the magistrate. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached the high court.
“On one hand, this court is insisting that trial courts dispose of long-pending criminal cases and therefore, the trial courts are getting strict while dealing with recall petitions. If such orders are interfered in a casual manner by this court (HC), in a way, this court will also be responsible for the pendency of cases before the subordinate courts,” the judge said.
Therefore, this practice of treating petitions filed under Section 311 of CrPC in a casual manner and calling witnesses to the court for cross-examination repeatedly should be stopped, he said. As witnesses are generally hesitant, if they are repeatedly called before the court, at one stage, no one will be ready to appear as witnesses, Justice Venkatesh said.
Unless the courts are going to get strict while dealing with such applications for recalling witnesses, no solution can be found for the disposal of long pending cases and the docket explosion is going to continue to haunt the courts, the judge added.
No comments:
Post a Comment