Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 4581
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
D.C. Ruskin - Appellant
Versus
State by Deputy Superintendent Police, Chennai - Respondent
Crl. O.P. Nos. 16470, 16540 of 2025, Crl. M.P. Nos. 10298, 10346 of 2025
Decided On : 10-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Karthikeyan
For the Respondent: A. Gokulakrishnan
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.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 17 and 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Right of the defense to summon documents at the defense stage and the role of the Trial Court regarding document production were examined - The petitioner challenged the dismissal of petitions for production of police files and witness summoning on the basis of procedural delays and relevance of documents. (Paras 2-3)
(B) Trial Procedure - The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural justice and the implications of long delays in presenting evidence, suggesting that repeated attempts to summon witnesses or documents after extensive cross-examination may prolong proceedings unnecessarily. (Paras 6-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the refusal of the Trial Court to summon documents relevant to the defense of the accused in a corruption case where there were allegations of bribery made against police officers.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that attempts to revisit prior completed cross-examinations without compelling reasons served only to prolong proceedings and lacked merit.
Issues: The primary issues encompassed the rights of the defense regarding document production and the nature of delays in trials.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that procedural norms must be followed and that additional documentary evidence sought belatedly may not warrant dismissal of prior decisions unless critical to the fairness of the trial.
Result: Both Crl.O.P.No.16470 of 2025 and Crl.O.P.No.16540 of 2025 dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitions filed by petitioner under relevant laws. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial court's dismissal due to delay reason. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments over summoning documents and delays. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. observation on evidence and relevance of documents. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. dismissal of petition for irrelevance. (Para 9) |
| 6. defense's attempt to summon additional witness rejected. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. final dismissal of the original petition. (Para 15) |
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 that the petition was filed to drag out the proceedings was acceptable. It also determined that the petitioner had cross-examined P.W.2 – Rajendran , on 18.08.2011; therefore, the petition filed after 14 years was unacceptable. Regarding the document related to the order of appointment of Mr. Nallammanaidu , the Trial Court found that P.Ws.7 and 8 had already been cross-examined and denied the involvement of the said officer, concluding that the petition was filed without appropriate reason. Aggrieved by this, Crl.O.P.No.16470 of 2025 has been filed.
4. Mr. S. Karthikeyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi , AIR 2005 SC 359 , the right of the defence to summon the documents arises only at the defence stage, and therefore, the finding of the Trial Court that there is a delay of 14 years may not be correct. Further, the learned counsel would rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police Vs. S. Subbegowda , 2023 AIR (SC) 3770 to contend that the application of mind while granting sanction is not an empty formality, and if there is a non-application of mind and if there is a further failure of justice that has occurred on account of non-application of mind, that still provides a ground for the Trial Court to consider. Therefore, the file is relevant for the purposes of proving that there is complete non- application of mind with reference to the order of grant of sanction. The officer named in the petition, Mr. Nallammanaidu, is inimically disposed towards the petitioner/accused, and only after his assumption of charge was the entire situation set up; therefore, only in that regard was the order sought. He would submit that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the said petition.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that even if there is any flaw regarding the grant of sanction, it cannot serve as the basis for claiming acquittal under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Requesting the file as well as the appointment order is vexatious and is made belatedly.
6. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the cas
