Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


G.M.Prathaban v. M.Mylsamy - Crl. R.C. No.750 of 2005 [2007] RD-TN 2521 (27 July 2007)


DATED: 27.07.2007




Crl. M.P. Nos.4828 and 4829 of 2005

G.M.Prathaban .. Petitioner in both revisions Vs


Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)

Taluk Office

Avinashi .. Respondent in both revisions These Revisions are filed against the order in C.M.P.No.2195 & 2196 of 2005 in Spl.S.C.No.263 of 2004 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Human Rights at Coimbatore. For petitioner : Mr.R.Kannan For respondent : Mr.N.Manoharan C O M M O N O R D E R

The common order passed in C.M.P.No.2195 of 2005 and C.M.P.No.2196 of 2005 in Spl.S.C.No.263 of 2004 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge. Special Judge of Human Rights at Coimbatore is under challenge in Crl.R.C.No.750 of 2005 and Crl.R.C.No.751/2005 respectively.

2. Both the petitions have been filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. by the complainant seeking indulgence of the court to permit him to examine about 11 witnesses in addition to the witnesses already examined on the side of the complainant. The learned trial Judge had rightly dismissed both the petitions on the ground that the scope of the complaint filed under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 is to decide whether there is any violation of human rights as defined undr Section 2(d) of the said Act,has occured.

3. The learned trial Judge has passed a common order in C.M.P.No.2195 and 2196 of 2005 because in both the petitions the prayer is one and the same ie., to summon 11 additional witnesses and also to direct them to produce the documents mentioned against their respective names.

4. If the revision petitioner wants to summon any document, if he thinks necessary to prove his case before the trial Court, there is no necessity for mentioning in the petitions to send for the documents and to mention the name of the witnesses through whom the documents are to be produced. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the learned trial Judge.

5. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would represent that he may be given an opportunity to file necessary petition before the Court to send for the necessary document. It is left open to the revision petitioner to do so, if it is absolutely necessary for the purpose of deciding the case before the trial Court and prerogative right of the trial Court is to consider what are all the documents necessary to summon for the purpose of deciding the case on merit.

6. In fine, Crl.R.C.Nos.750 and 751 of 2005 are dismissed confirming the order of the learned trial Judge in Spl.C.C.No.2195 & 2196 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge for Human Rights at Coimbatore. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.Nos.4828 & 4829 of 2005 are also dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with SP.S.C.No.263/2004 pending on his file and dispose of the same within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. sg .


The Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge for Human Rights, Coimbatore.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.