The court emphasized that witness summons must demonstrate relevance to the case, and applications should not be intended for vexation or delay, affirming the dismissal of petitions lacking merit.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’ hereinafter) by the petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.4/2019 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, challenging Annexure A3 common order in C.M.P.Nos.401/2025 and402/2025, dated 19.6.2025.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

3. This is a case where the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter) by the accused/petitioner herein. The allegation is that, at about 16.10 hrs. on 29.7.2016, the accused, who had been working as Village Assistant at Thennala Village Office, Malappuram, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.6,000/- from one Sri.Anas Tharammal, who was examined in this case as PW11 and thereafter, accepted the same during trap proceedings and accordingly, the accused was red-handedly arrested. As of now, in this case, charge framed on 10.09.2024 and trial started on 24.09.2024. On 07.05.2025, the complainant got examined as PW11 after securing his presence from abroad. Now, prosecution evidence completed and the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case posted for defence evidence on 16.06.2025.

4. While so, the petitioner/accused filed two petitions under Section 266 of the BNSS. The averments in the first petition is that, after scheduling the case for trial, as on 03.05.2025, the wife of PW11 had telephonic discussion with the accused and during the discussion, she stated that her husband committed wrong to him and she had repentance on the same. According to the petitioner, the telephone discussion in between the petitioner and the wife of PW11 is from his mobile phone No.9526531245 and the wife of PW11 talked to him from her mobile phone No.8086578714. According to the petitioner, he had produced CDR pertaining to Vodafone Idea company in this regard and also produced the telephone discussion recorded in pendrive before the court. Therefore, in order to prove the said fact, the wife of PW11 is to be summoned. The prayer in the second petition is also in connection with the first petition, whereby it was requested to produce details regarding the telephone calls received in the petitioner's mobile phone No.9526531245 on 03.05.2025 to prove that there was telephone call in between the petitioner and the wife of PW11 on 03.05.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued the above points to revisit the common order.

5. Prosecution side zealously opposed the said petitions on the submission that the prayers in the petitions are devoid of any merits and the intention behind these petitions was to prolong trial. It was contended that the repentance, at the instance of the wife of PW11, if found to be true, the same, in fact, unbelievable and unreliable as against the evidence of PW11. Therefore, the same has no evidentiary value to decide the case. That apart, the pendrive alleged to have contained the discussion in between the petitioner and the wife of the PW11 also could not be accepted in evidence, since in the petitions, nothing stated as to how the telephone discussion was copied and recorded in the pendrive.

6. Addressing the prayers in the petitions in tune with the objections filed by the prosecution, the learned Special Judge dismissed both the petitions, relying on a decision of the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Tuncay Alankus, 20