Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J, D.C. Ruskin
D.C. Ruskin – Appellant
Versus
State by Deputy Superintendent Police, Chennai – Respondent
ORDER :
1. These two Criminal Original Petitions are filed by petitioner/accused No. 1 in C.C. No. 33 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for the trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, and are hereby taken up and disposed of by this common order.
2. Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2025 is filed under Section 91 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE read with Section 162 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , with a prayer to direct the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, to cause the production of the entire file in RC No.175/109071/PR-IV(3)/08 concerning the report of the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai, dated 28.11.2009 and the related records. Two parts of the same file, which pertain to the passing of the order of sanction, were directed to be produced. The second document, the appointment order of Mr.Nallammanaidu as the Officer on Special Duty at the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Chennai, is also directed to be produced. The said petition was contested by the prosecution through a detailed counter affidavit.
3. The Trial Court considered the matter and, by an order dated 29.05.2025, found that the Public Prosecutor's contention
The court affirmed that the right to summon documents arises at the defense stage but stressed that delays in such requests can undermine trial integrity and prolong proceedings unnecessarily.
If the accused, after he has entered upon his defence, applies to the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination,....
The power under Section 91 Cr.P.C. can only be invoked when the relevancy and necessity or desirability of the documents are demonstrated by the accused.
The summoning of documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. can be done at any stage of the trial and is not limited to the defense stage.
Main documents, in respect of which the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is required, have already been marked or produced. Therefore, it cannot be found that production of the certi....
The trial court's rejection of the defence witness application was improper under S.233 Cr.P.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the careful consideration of the limitations and conditions for summoning documents and recalling witnesses under the relevant sections of the Crim....
The necessity of documents for trial must be clearly stated in the application; failure to do so justifies dismissal under Sections 233(3) and 91 of Cr.P.C.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
