The main legal point established in the judgment is that the documents already on record should be proved by summoning witnesses under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, and the trial should be completed expeditiously in line with Section 309 of Cr.P.C and the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petitions filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr. P.C. against the order passed by the Special Court No.1 of Trial for Criminal Cases related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.13839 of 2020 in C.C.No.10 of 2019, dated 25.01.2021).

Common Order

1. These Criminal Revision Cases have been filed challenging the order of the Trial Court, permitting the prosecution to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

2. The final report was filed as against the accused persons for various offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w 409, 467, 471, 477-A IPC and Section 18 (2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of PC Act, 1988. The allegations in the final report pertain to loss to the exchequer by misusing the telephone connections. Be that as it may. The prosecution case may not be necessary in this revision, as the issue involved in this revision is very narrow. Though 79 witnesses have been cited on the side of the prosecution, 36 witnesses have been examined, which is also not disputed by both sides. At this stage, it appears that the defence side has also filed a memo seeking direction to the respondent/prosecution to produce all relevant documents, which were already unearthed during the investigation by the respondent. However, those documents have not formed part of the final report.

3. Accused No.4 filed a memo detailing the various documents seized by the prosecution. The trial Court, vide order dated 10.03.2020, in C.C.No.10 of 2019 passed the following order:

“A3 and A7 appearance already dispensed with. Others absent. Petition filed under Section 317 of Cr. P.C. is allowed. Memo filed by A4. Considered. Heard the Special Public Prosecutor and the counsel for accused. The documents listed and pointed out by defence in the memo were relied upon by the prosecution witnesses. Even as per the case of the prosecution the files listed in the memo which are part of seized documents (Seizure memo in L.D.2 and L.D.69) are relevant documents. The meter reading of the phones would indicate the usage. All documents seized by the prosecution are relevant to the case of prosecution for proving the loss and also for proving the facts that BSNL had issued materials from the stores. All the documents seized and relied upon by the prosecution are not submitted before this Court. The documents relied upon by the prosecution cannot be kept away either from the court or from the defence. Thus the prosecution is directed to submit all the documents mentioned in the memo filed by A4 today (which form part of seizure memos). Upon such production copies of all the documents shall be produced to the accused persons. No witnesses present. At request of Special Public Prosecutor for production of documents and witness by 18.03.2020.”

4. However, CDs were not produced for compliance of the order and again, a memo was filed by the accused No.4 dated 27.11.2020, for which, the prosecution has filed a memo seeking further time on the ground that those CDs pertaining to the CDR's of the mobile connections have to be verified and obtained from CBI, STB, New Delhi. Thereafter, an application under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed for further investigation. On entire application scanned, the grievance of the prosecution appears to be that though the documents were produced before the Court at the instance of the accused, those documents ought to be proved before the Court of law by relevant witnesses and one of the apprehensions expressed by the prosecution is that the data and master data ought to be co-related with Experts and Experts to be examined.

5. During the submissions, when the Court posed a question as to why the prosecution has not resorted to the provisions under Section 311 of Cr. P.C., the prosecution has submitted that in respect of the documents produced before the Court, they will resort to the provisions un