The right to examine defense witnesses is essential for ensuring a fair trial, and unjust denial of this right by the trial court can be grounds for appellate intervention.

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.O.P.No.18348 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No. 12186 of 2025 Tr.Z.Abdul Hakkim ... Petitioner Vs.

The State, Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, City-II Detachment, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act r/w 482 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 18.06.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.85 of 2025 in C.C.No.21 of 2013 on the file of the Special Court for Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai and to allow the said petition as prayed for.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Srinivas, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.V.Mythili For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is directed against the order of the Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988, Chennai, dated 18.06.2025, made in Crl.M.P. No. 85 of 2025 in C.C. No. 21 of 2013.

2. By the said order, the application filed by the petitioner herein, who is the sole accused in the case, was partly dismissed by the trial Court. The prayer made by the petitioner is to permit him to examine five persons, including an individual and four official witnesses, as defence witnesses. Of the five, the trial Court permitted the petitioner to examine one Devi Selvam, who was hitherto shown as LW6 in the final report, as a defence witness, while denying permission with respect to the other four. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Mr. R.Srinivas, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that this is a case where the allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner was caught red-handed while demanding and accepting a bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- for issuing a transfer certificate to a student. The defense taken by the petitioner/accused is that he, as headmaster, had taken action against unauthorized orphanages and sports academies functioning on the school premises, and also opposed the cutting of standing trees in the school campus, which were ultimately burnt down by some miscreants. This matter was reported to the fire services. In view of all these consecutive actions taken by the headmaster, a third party taking advantage of a student who did not have parents, willfully and intentionally intruded in the matter, arranged the trap and placed the money in the drawer of the petitioner.

4. The learned Senior counsel submits that, in that regard, he made queries under the Right to Information Act , 2005. Some of the information was provided to him by the Office of the District Educational Officer on 05.02.2014 and by the Office of the Chief Educational Officer on 25.04.2014. Similarly, another set of information was furnished under the , 2005 by the Public Information Officer at the Office of the Chief Educational Officer on 13.03.2014. Further, it is necessary to examine the Public Information Officer from the Fire Services and Rescue Department, as they also furnished written information sought by the petitioner on 25.03.2014. The defense seeks to summon these witnesses only to substantiate its version. The same was refused by the trial Court. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the reasoning given by the trial Court that the petitioner is not willing to share the said information obtained under the , 2005 cannot, by itself, be a reason to deny the opportunity to the defense.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, before the trial Court, did not want to share those information in advance because they wanted to confront the witnesses in the box with those information. In any event, he had no objection to sharing the information, and it was