Chandramohan vs. Arumugasamy

Held

The High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate. The Court held that the petitioner, as an accused, has a right to adduce evidence to prove his defence or rebut any presumption. The Magistrate's discretionary power under Section 254(2) of the Cr.P.C. to allow defence witnesses should be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily, to avoid shutting down the accused's right to produce evidence. The Court found that the Magistrate had not provided valid reasons for rejecting the petitioner's plea, making the impugned order unsustainable. The Court directed the trial court to complete the trial expeditiously, setting specific dates for filing process memo, issuing summons, and examining witnesses, while also directing the respondent to cooperate and cross-examine on the same day. The ratio is that a Magistrate must provide valid reasons when rejecting an application to summon defence witnesses, and denying this opportunity can violate the accused's right to a fair trial.

Facts

The petitioner, Chandramohan, is the accused in a criminal case (C.C.No.83 of 2018) filed by the respondent, Arumugasamy. The respondent alleges that the petitioner failed to repay Rs. 12.5 lakhs for Neem seeds supplied on credit. The petitioner claims there was no such liability and sought to examine officers from the Commercial Tax Department to prove the supply of goods. He filed a petition under Section 315 of Cr.P.C. to reopen defence evidence, which was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, on 27.10.2023. This revision case challenges that dismissal order. The respondent argued that the petitioner's application was a delaying tactic as the case has been pending since 2018.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Judicial Magistrate erred in dismissing the petitioner's application to reopen defence evidence and examine Commercial Department Officers, thereby infringing the accused's right to present his defence, under Section 254(2) of the Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that it was necessary to examine Commercial Department Officers to ascertain the supply of Neem seeds, as there was no liability to prove such supply. He argued that denying this opportunity would deprive him of presenting his defence and violate the principles of fair trial. He relied on Supreme Court and High Court judgments emphasizing the accused's right to adduce evidence to rebut prosecution cases or establish defence. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner filed the application without valid reason and with the intention to prolong the case, which has been pending since 2018. He sought the dismissal of the revision petition.