High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Charles v. State by Inspector of Police2. Mani - CRL.R.C.No.559 of 2002  RD-TN 1108 (19 December 2003)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.PACKIARAJ
CRL.R.C.No.559 of 2002
Charles .. Petitioner. Versus
1. State by Inspector of Police
Bhavani Police Station.
2. Mani .. Respondents. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran
For Respondents: Mr.V.Arul
Government Advocate (R1)
Prayer: Revision filed against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani in Crl.M.P.No.5457 of 2001 in STC.No.1347 of 2000.
: O R D E R
This revision has been filed against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani in Crl.M.P.No.5457 of 2001 in STC.NO.1347 of 20 00, allowing the petition filed by the prosecution to add the petitioner as an accused under Section 319 of Cr.P
2. The circumstances under which the said order came to be passed is as follows: Originally, prosecution was launched against one Mani for offence under Section 4(1)(k) of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act, alleging that he allowed certain persons to have drinks in his wine shop. To substantiate the above, six witnesses were examined o n the side of the prosecution. Subsequently thereafter, when the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he has informed that he was not the owner of the shop and that the petitioner herein was the person who owned the same. It is on the basis of this statement, a petition had been filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C to add the petitioner as an accused and the same was allowed. It is against the same, the present revision has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the prosecution case itself is that it was the accused in STC.NO.1 347 of 2000, namely Mani who allowed the premises to be used for drinking and no where it has been suggested that th e petitioner herein was ever involved, nor any of the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution has stated about his involvement in the offence or that he is the owner of the premises and therefore, the petitioner cannot be added as an accused.
4. Added to the above, the counsel appearing for the petitioner rested his argument mainly on the language used under Section 319 Cr.P.C, which states that in the course of any inquiry or trial, it appears from the evidence that the person not being the accused has committed any offence, he can be brought in as an accused. So what is necessary for the Magistrate is the evidence and it is only on that basis he can add any person as an accused. Now in the present case, the learned Magistrate has taken t he statement of the accused given under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The said statement, by no stretch of imagination can be stated as an evidence and consequently, the learned Magistrate has erred in adding the petitioner as an accused. I see considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel and the same is justifiable. Therefore, I see that the order of the learned Magistrate is illegal and the same deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.5457 o f 2001 is set aside. In the result, the revisions stands allowed. The Registry is directed to send back the records, if any, forthwith to the Court below.
csh 19-12-2003 Index:Yes
A.PACKIARAJ,J. To csh
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani
2. -Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.
3. The Inspector of Police, Bhavani Police Station, Erode. CRL.R.C.No.559 of 2002
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.