SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60079

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice M. NIRMAL KUMAR
J.SETHURAMAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE REP.BY – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.02.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.3640 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.2398 of 2025 J.Sethuraman ... Petitioner Vs.

The State, Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai City II, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016.

(Crime No.141/2012). ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the order dated 15.11.2024 made in Crl.M.P.No.1190 of 2023 in C.C.No.31 of 2013 passed by the Special Judge, Special Court for the cases under PC Act, Chennai – 104.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sukumaran For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER The petitioner, who is facing trial in C.C.No.31 of 2013 before the learned Special Judge, Special Court for the cases under PC Act, Chennai, has filed a petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C in Crl.M.P.No.1190 of 2023 in C.C.No.31 of 2013 to produce the following documents:

“(a)The General Diary of DVAC for the period from 30.07.2012 to

10.09.2012.

(b)Visitors Book of DVAC for the period from 30.07.2012 to

10.09.2012.

(c)Visitors Book of Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Mandaveli for the period from 30.07.2012 to 10.09.2012.

(d)Incoming Tapal Register of Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Mandaveli for the period from 30.07.2012 to 10.09.2012.

(e)Outgoing Tapal Distribution Register of Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Mandaveli for the period from 30.07.2012 to 10.09.2012.

(f)Visitor's Book of Tamilnadu Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited for the period from 30.07.2012 to 10.09.2012.

(g)Incoming Tapal Register of Tamilnadu Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited for the period from 30.07.2012 to

10.09.2012.

(h)Outgoing Tapal Distribution Register of Tamilnadu Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited for the period from 30.07.2012 to

10.09.2012.

(i)Pocket Diary of PW10 - Mr.Shanmugam for the period from

30.07.2012 to 10.09.2012.

(j)Tapal Distribution Register of Incoming Tapals and the Despatch Register of Outgoing Tapals maintained in the DVAC.”

The Trial Court, by order, dated 15.11.2024 dismissed the above said petition, against which, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on the complaint of the defacto complainant and no way connected to the case. He further submitted that the petitioner was employed in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and that he was not allotted any additional duty in Adyar Division and he was only looking after the jurisdiction of IT Corridor Division alone. In this case, the defacto complainant/decoy in his evidence admits that whenever any person entered the Government Office, they used to make entry of the visitors name in the Visitors Book and that since the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and DVAC are Government Offices, necessary entries would have made. In this case, based on the letter of DVAC, PW3/Azhagumalai and PW11/Jeevanantham were summoned. The General Diary is to be maintained in the DVAC Office which would show the entry of the decoy and the two official witnesses with date and time. He further submitted that the witnesses present in the DVAC Office even prior to the complaint, no requisition was made to them. With such interested witnesses, the petitioner was falsely implicated, hence the Visitors Books of DVAC, Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Mandaveli and Tamil Nadu Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited would prove the presence of PW3 and PW11 in the DVAC office along with decoy, is highly doubtful.

3.The learned counsel further submitted that the Trial Court dismissed the petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C merely recording the petitioner's contention and the counter filed by the respondent that the documents sought for from the DVAC were lost in the flood of the year 2015 and other documents sought from the Di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top