The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of a petition for summoning evidence that would only delay proceedings.

ORDER

Seeking to set aside the impugned order passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, in Crl.M.P.No.37 of 2026 in S.C.No.

304 of 2020 dated 03.03.2026, this criminal revision case is filed.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the accused in a murder case in S.C.No.304 of 2020. They have filed a petition under Section 254 (2) of Cr.P.C., to examine witness on the side of the defence. More particularly, the said petition was filed to prove that the vehicle of the second accused bearing registration number TN 01 AB 3701 had crossed Thoothukudi Vagaikulam Toll plaza and Nanganeri Toll plaza on the date of occurrence and 10 days before the date of occurrence and on the date of arrest, and that as per the case of the prosecution, the accused was said to have arrested near the Toll plaza and that the accused was not arrested on the said date and hence, for the purpose of substantiating the said claim, the examination of Manager of NHAI is necessary. However, the learned Trial Court by perusing the oral evidence of DW1 and DW2 came to a conclusion that CCTV recordings on the dates 14.12.2017, 15.12.2017 and 04.10.2016 as sought by the accused is not available either with Thoothukudi Vagaikulam Toll Plaza and with Nanganeri Toll Plaza or with NHAI. Under such circumstances, the learned trial Court felt that summoning the Manager of NHAI will not serve any useful purpose and it would only delay the proceedings of this case.

Hence, the petitioner sought for the indulgence of this Court.

3.The learned Government Advocate categorically contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. More particularly, he pointed out that it is not necessary to always use the Toll plaza for reaching a particular destination. They could even take a diverted route and hence, sought for dismissal of this revision case.

4.Heard either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

5.The CCTV footage/ records sought for was with respect to the year

2017 and the petition has been filed by the petitioner in the year 2026 requiring the NHAI Manager to produce records, including CCTV footage of the year 2017. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, when there is a possibility for the persons to reach a particular destination even without covering a Toll plaza, the point of requiring the Manager of NHAI to appear would only as observed by the learned trial Court protract the pending trial in a murder case. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.