The main legal point established is that refusal to permit the examination of defense witnesses under Section 243 Cr.P.C. may result in denial of fair trial and prejudice to the accused, especially in cases where there is a presumption cast on the accused.

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to set aside the order dated 15.03.2019 passed in Crl.MP.No.130/2019 in Spl. Case No.24 of 2011 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Cuddalore.)

1. The Criminal Original Petition has been filed, seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Cuddalore, in Crl.MP.No.130 of 2019 in Spl.Case No.24 of 2011 dated 15.03.2019, dismissing the petition filed under Section 243 (i) Cr.P.C., to permit the petitioner to examine 7 witnesses on his side.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused was working as Foreman Grade-I, in the office of Junior Engineer, TNEB, Rural (West), Pathirikuppam, Cuddalore District, from 23.03.2007 to 29.12.2010 and he is a public servant as per Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. On 18.12.2010, the petitioner/accused had demanded Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant-Thiru.N.Loganathan, and that on 28.12.2010 at 09.00 hours, the said complainant met the petitioner/accused to requested to reduce the bribe amount and the petitioner reduced and demanded the bribe amount of Rs.800/- from the complainant and also he directed the complainant to bring the said bribe amount of Rs.800/- on the next day, for himself, as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing his official act. Pursuant to the demand a trap was laid on 29.12.2010 and the petitioner/accused was caught while accepting the bribe and was arrested and after completion of investigation, the respondent police had filed the final report against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. The Special Case had been taken on file on 01.12.2011 and trial had commenced on 06.02.2013 and P.W.1 to 14 were examined and Ex.P.1 to 25 were marked and the evidence on the side of the prosecution was closed on 08.11.2018. The petitioner/accused was questioned under Section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C., on 15.11.2018 and thereafter, the case had been adjourned to 29.11.2018, 20.12.2018, 10..01.2019 and 22.01.2019 for defence side evidence and since no witness was produced, the trial Court had attempted to close the evidence of the petitioner/accused. At that stage, the petitioner had filed an application for adjournment in Crl.MP.No.33 of 2019, seeking one month time to furnish list of witnesses, which was dismissed as infructuous on 04.03.2019 and thereafter giving sufficient opportunities on 24.01.2019, 07.02.2019 and 04.03.2019, the case had been adjourned to 05.03.2019 and at that stage, the present application had been filed under Section 243 (i) Cr.P.C., seeking to permit the petitioner to examine 7 witnesses of the side of the defence.

5. Though no counter had been filed and no objection had been made by the respondent police, the learned Trial Judge had dismissed the application stating that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunities from 29.11.2018 to 08.03.2019 and that he has not utilized the opportunities and that finding no suggestions were put to the prosecution witnesses with regard to the reason for which the defence witnesses were sought to be examined and further finding that the application has been filed for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice had dismissed the petition filed under Section 243 (i) Cr.P.C.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that under Chapter XIX of the Cr.P.C., under Section 243 Cr.P.C an indefeasible right has given to the accused to let in evidence on the side of the defence. He would submit that as per Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, presumption is cast against the petitioner and the petitioner has a bounden duty to rebut the presumption by letting evidence on his side. He would further submit that the witnesses sought to be recalled ar