IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.02.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.R.C.No.350 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.3506 of 2025 Mohanasundharam ... Petitioner/A1 Versus The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, praying to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the Special Court for PC Act Cases, Chennai dated 14.02.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2025 in C.C.No.6 of 2015 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner and be directed to adjudicate the admissibility prior to proceedings with the final arguments.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Anantha Krishna for Ms.K.Jayavarthini For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner/A1, who is facing trial in C.C.No.6 of 2015 for offences under Sections 7 r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, had objected to marking of Exs.30 to 35, which are per se inadmissible. These documents were marked through PW19/Investigating Officer, who examined in chief and cross examined in detail. The evidence was closed on 28.02.2023 on both sides and the case was posted for arguments before the trial Court. At that stage, the prosecution filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.606 of 2023 to recall PW19 for marking of few documents as exhibits. The same was allowed by the trial Court, PW19/Investigating Officer further examined in chief and marked Exs.P30 to P35.

2.PW19 in his cross examination admitted that Exs.P32 to P34 were not seized through mahazar or received recording memo, request of the Investigating Officer, the documents were produced. He also admits that there is no record as to who produced the documents and what was the documents and what for it was collected. He further admits that these documents are photostat copies not original and there is no authentication. In view of the above, the secondary documents cannot be marked without giving reasons as to why the primary document unable to be marked and substituting it by secondary document. There is a procedure in the Evidence Act, this procedure not followed. Hence, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2025 before the trial Court to decide the objections raised on admissibility of the documents, viz., Exs.P30 to P35, but the trial Court not considered the petitioner's objection. In contrary to the judgments and directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the trial Court had given a finding that the objections can be considered at the time of judgment. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner made detailed arguments submitting that Ex.P30 is the xerox copy of suspension order of the petitioner issued in G.O.(2D) No.49 dated 19.07.2014, Ex.P32 is the Extracts (2 papers) of PR Book maintained in District Revenue Office, Ex.P33 is the Extracts (2 papers) of RBI Challan Register maintained in District Revenue Office, Ex.P34 is the Extracts of document receipt register maintained in District Revenue Office and Ex.P35 is the xerox copy of Special Power of Attorney No.4/2011. He further submitted that though the witnesses from the District Revenue Office, Chennai Collectorate examined, attention of the witnesses not drawn to these documents. Further no witnesses had spoken about the same and there is no evidence to show that these documents are voluminous and unable to be transported and for that reason photostat copies produced. Further, there is a procedure to produce the secondary document. There is no attestation or certificate by the concerned officer to certify the truthfulness and authenticity of the document. In such circumstances, allowed these documents to be marked through the Investigating Officer, who admits that he received these documents and produced the same. He is neither authority of the documents nor dealt wit