BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 12.02.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE N.MALA K.Saravanan ... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Tamilnadu rep.by The Inspector of Police Vigilance & Anti Corruption Wing Sivagangai District.

Cr.No.10/2022 ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS/482 of CrPC, to set aside the impugned order by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai, MP.No.5/2025 in Spl.CC.No.7/2023 dated 14.10.2025 as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(1)This petition is filed by the petitioner to set aside the impugned order dated

14.10.2025 made in MP.No.5/2025 I Spl.CC.No.7/2023 by the Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai, dismissing the petitioner's application to produce certain records relating to the mobile No. 9894286959, including the subscriber details, date of activation, Call Data Records [CDRs] and SMS received between 26.10.2022 and 31.10.2022.

(2)The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner who is arraigned as A1, being a public servant, had demanded bribe of Rs.7,000/- on 28.10.2022 from the defacto complainant Thiru.Divyadharshan, for the purpose of transferring patta in his name from the name of his mother. It is stated that the accused later scaled down the bribe amount from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.6,000/- and received the same on 31.10.2022 through the second accused, in the presence of the official witness, Tr.Pandi @ Muruganandam. It is further stated that on the instructions of the petitioner [A1], Manibharathi [A2], received the tainted currency notes of Rs. 5,000/- and kept it in his pant pocket. The Forensic Science Lab Report confirmed the presence of Sodium Carbonate and phenolphthalein in the washed solutions. Therefore, a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, was registered in Crime No.10/2022 for the offences u/s.7 of PC Act, 1988, as amended by the PC [Amendment] Act, 2018, against the petitioner and A2.

(3)During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner filed an application for production of the application form submitted by the subscriber of the Mobile No.9894286959, date of activation of the said mobile number, CDR of 9894286959 for the month of October, 2022 and SMS received in Mobile No.9894286959 from 26.10.2022 and 31.10.2022. The respondent filed a counter to the said application, wherein it was stated that the documents were neither relevant nor necessary for the just decision of the case and that the petition was filed only to delay the proceedings. It was further stated that as per the Letter of the Government of India, Department of Telecommunications [Access Service Wing] in No.20-271/2010-AS-I [Vol.III] dated 21.12.2021, the Telecom Service Providers were directed to retain the Call Data Records [CDRs], IPDRs and EDRs only for a period of two years, after which period, the data could be destroyed unless specific directions were issued to preserve them. The Trial Court, on consideration of the entire materials before it, dismissed the application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner/A1 has filed the above Criminal Original Petition.

(4)The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had sought for production of four items of documents, but the Trial Court rejected the application by discussing only one item of documents and therefore, the impugned order is vitiated for total non-application of mind. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order was cryptic and non-speaking and therefore, the same deserved to be set aside. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court dated 27.11.2012 in Crl.RC.(MD).No.567/2012 [S.Regina Beevi Vs. The Inspector of Police, Vadasery Police Station, Vadasery, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District] in support of the said contention.

(5)The learned Add