This matter arises out of a sent for petition filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C.

2. Though a routine question had been cropped up, but it is put up in a new fashion, question of right of defence, extent of defence, constitutionally guaranteed right of the accused under Article 22(1) had shown.

3. Petitioners/accused are being prosecuted for their alleged commission of certain white collar offences before the learned Special Judge under PC Act/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvellore. Investigation completed. Prosecution package has been produced. Charges were framed. Now, the stage is set for trial of those charges.

4. At this juncture, in the Trial Court, the petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No. 2120 of 2015 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking production of the following documents for his effective defence:-

1. (a) General diary entries relating to Cr.No.19/2009/HQRS maintained chronologically for the date from 13.06.2009 to 13.5.2010.

(b) Visitors Entry-register maintained at the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, SIC, Chennai – 28 between 01.06.2009 to 17.06.2009.

2. The Chief Engineer, Distribution, Chennai Region South, TNEB, Annasalai, Chennai -2 to cause the production of the following documents :

a) Entire file (including current file and note file) generated in pursuance of proceeding No.009319/376/Admo/B1/2009-2 dated 27.04.2010 generated by the Office of the Chief Engineer, Distribution, Chennai Region South, TNEB, Annasalai, Chennai – 2 pertaining to the report of the director of V&AC, Chennai in the R.C.No.233/2009/EB/SIC dated 19.04.2010 & Cr.No.19/2009/HQRS and connected records thereon.

3. The Superintending Engineer, CEDC South, TNEB, Chennai to cause the production of the following documents :

a) Entire file (including current file & note file) generated in pursuance of proceeding No.006334/308/Adm1/A4/F.DV&AC/10 dated 11.05.2010 generated by the Office of the Superintending Engineer, CEDC South TNEB, Chennai pertaining to the report of the Director of V&AC, Chennai in the R.C.No.233/2009/EB/SIC dated 19.4.2010 & Cr.No.19/2009/HQRS and connected records thereon.

4. The Office of the Assistant Engineer O&M/TNEB/Nandambakkam at Manapakkam to cause production of the following documents :

a) Service Connection Application Register for the period 10.06.2009 to 20.06.2009.

b) Estimate Sent Off Register from AE to AEE for the period June 2009.

c) Registration Payment Regster for the period June 2009.

d) Entire Extension of Supply Docket pertaining to the 17 applications.

e) Work Order Application Register for the period June 2009.

f) Service Connection Estimate Register for the period June 2009.

g) Extension of Supply Payment register for the period June 2009.

h) Service effected Register and Original Test Report register for the period June 2009.

i) 17 Nos of Sale Deeds pertaining to the flats.

j) Domestic Application Register for the period June 2009.

5. The Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer/O&M/ Ramapuram/CEDC/South Circle to cause the production of the following documents :

a) Domestic Extension of Supply Register along with the estimate sanction copies

5. The Trial Court coming to conclusion that the crux of the case is whether the accused had demanded bribe and accepted the same for which the said documents are not necessary. With this ratio decidendi, the Trial Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C.

6. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the view of the Trial Court is pedantic in nature. Lacking pragmatism. Right of defence cannot be curtailed or scuttled. Devising of the defence need not be controlled, curtailed, restricted or foreclosed nor defence be incapacitated in defending the accused. Of course, if it is for an hidden agenda, it is intended to prolong the trial, it is always with the Court to nib it at the bud but not the real defence.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in this case, to improbabilize the prosecution version of th