BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 02.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.3541 and 3298 of 2024

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.2619 and 2801 of 2024

G.Ramesh Kumar, ... Petitioner/Respondent/Accused

Vs.

State of Tamilnadu

Rep. through Inspector of Police,

CBCID, Nagercoil,

Kanyakumari District. ... Respondent/Petitioner/Complainant Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3541 of 2024 : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to Crl M.P No. 5269 of 2019 in Spl S.C No. 64 of 2023 (Spl C.C No. 3/2019 of CJM Court) dated 02.02.2024 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanniyakumari District at

Nagercoil and set aside the same.

Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3298 of 2024 : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to Crl M.P No. 5268 of 2019 in Spl S.C No. 64 of 2023 (Spl C.C No. 3/2019 of CJM Court) dated 02.02.2024 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanniyakumari District at

Nagercoil and set aside the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivakumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor

COMMON ORDER

Preface:

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, calling in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil, in Crl.M.P. Nos.5268 and 5269 of 2019 in Spl.S.C. No.64 of 2023 (formerly Spl.C.C. No.3 of 2019).

2. By the impugned common order, the learned Trial Judge allowed the petitions filed by the prosecution under Sections 311 and 242(3) Cr.P.C., 1973, permitting recall of P.W.1 for further examination-in-chief and directing receipt of a Compact Disc as a material exhibit, though the witness had already been examined and cross-examined several years earlier.

3. The petitioner/accused assails the said order on the ground that the same enables the prosecution to fill up lacunae after an inordinate lapse of time and seeks to introduce an electronic document of doubtful origin and authenticity, without examining its author, thereby causing grave prejudice to the defence.

Case of the prosecution:

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that two crimes came to be registered by the Arumanai Police Station, namely:

(i) Crime No.191 of 2011 for offences under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 4(1)(A) of the MMDR Act; and (ii) Crime No.192 of 2011 for offences under Sections 353 and

506(ii) IPC.

5. After investigation, charge sheets were filed, and the cases were taken on file as S.C. No.179 of 2016 (later renumbered as Spl.S.C. No.126 of 2022) and Spl.C.C. No.3 of 2019 (later renumbered as Spl.S.C. No.64 of 2023). P.W.1, namely Narayana Dass, Tahsildar, was examined in the case in Spl.C.C. No.3 of 2019 and as P.W.2 in the connected Sessions Case. His examination-in-

chief took place on 23.07.2015, and he was elaborately cross-

examined on 27.06.2017.

6. During the pendency of the trial, the prosecution filed Crl.M.P. No.5268 of 2019 under Section 311 Cr.P.C., 1973 to recall P.W.1 and Crl.M.P. No.5269 of 2019 under Section 242(3) Cr.P.C., 1973, to receive a Compact Disc allegedly depicting the occurrence, contending that P.W.1 had referred to the said Compact Disc in his statement recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., 1973, in Crime No. 191 of 2011, but that the same was inadvertently not filed along with the final report.

Grounds for setting aside the impugned order:

7. The petitioner/accused contends that:

a) The impugned order is contrary to law, weight of evidence, and settled principles governing recall of witnesses.

b) P.W.1 had already been examined and cross-examined in detail, and the recall sought after nearly five years is only to fill up lacunae.

c) P.W.1 is not cited as a witness for the purpose of marking the Compact Disc in the present ca