Saturday, Jun 14, 2003
Front Page |
Southern States |
Other States |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |
By Our Special Correspondent
One petition sought permission to examine as additional witness one Madappan, who, the prosecution said, was in charge of receiving cloth for school uniform (which had to be stitched and distributed to children) for 1994-95. His examination was necessary to explain clearly the entries made in the relevant document.
Defence countered, saying the petition was filed only to protract the proceedings.
The Judge said the prosecution had filed the application to fill up lacunae in the case after hearing defence arguments. Referring to the prosecution submission that a witness, Vimala Daisy, had testified that Madappan was in charge of receiving the uniform cloth, the judge said the witness, during cross-examination, had also given the names of two other officers, who had held the same post at various times during the relevant period. The document did not contain either Mr. Madappan's signature or initials. The judge wondered how far it would be relevant to examine him. Ms. Daisy was examined in chief on March 21, 2000, but the prosecution filed the petition after a lapse of three-and-a-half years, when final arguments were nearing completion. Further, the grounds for recalling the witness had not been stated. Hence the petition was not maintainable.
The judge said the case had been pending for the past seven years and if the application was allowed, the accused would be prejudiced. The special court had been constituted for speedy trial.
The judge also dismissed the other petition, seeking to examine Balasubramanian, then company secretary, Tamil Nadu Textile Corporation and Pollachi Jayaraman, and further examine one Chenninathan on allocation of uniform cloth for 1995-96 to 21 districts.
On an application by the prosecution seeking adjournment of the case by 10 days as it intended filing a revision petition challenging the dismissal of the applications, the judge granted time to the special public prosecutor till June 19 to get a High Court order and produce it in the court on or before June 20. The judge also fixed that date for further reply arguments by the SPP.
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of