IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and CRL MP No.3610 of 2026 S.Thillai Selvan ..Petitioner(s)

Vs The State rep.by, The Additional Superintendent of Police, SPE, CBI, EOB, Chennai.

In RC.No.4/E/2004/CB/EOW Chennai.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order in Crl.MP.No.15 of 2025 dated 04.02.2026 on the file of the learned I Additional (TADA) City Civil and Sessions Court, Chennai by allowing this criminal original petition.

For Petitioner(s): Ms. N.Subhasree For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Mohan, Special Public Prosecutor For CBI Cases

ORDER

The Petitioner/Accused has filed this Criminal Original Petition seeking to set aside the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the learned I Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Criminal M.P. No. 15 of 2025. By the impugned order, the learned Judge dismissed the petitioner’s application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., which sought to recall and reopen the evidence of prosecution witnesses PW1, PW2, PW11, and PW25 for the purpose of further cross-examination at the appellate stage.

2.The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a convicted accused in C.C. No. 2037 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. During the trial, a significant procedural development occurred on 08.04.2022, when the Trial Court amended and altered the charges to include offences under Section 120B and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Following this alteration, the Trial Court rendered its judgment on 31.05.2022, convicting the petitioner. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2022. Pending the appeal, the petitioner filed the present application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to recall the witnesses, which was strongly contested by the respondent through a detailed counter-affidavit.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, currently 61 years of age, has been severely incapacitated by paralysis, resulting in him being frequently hospitalised on and off during the course of the legal proceedings. It was argued that due to his deteriorating health, the petitioner was physically and mentally unable to properly follow the case or provide timely instructions to his counsel, particularly after the charges were altered on 08.04.2022. The petitioner contended that since no further cross-examination was conducted specifically addressing the newly added elements of conspiracy and forgery, his right to a fair trial was compromised. It was further submitted that the evidence of these witnesses is essential for arriving at a just decision in the appeal and that the petitioner’s failure to seek a recall earlier was purely due to his indisposition. The petitioner urged that if a final chance is not granted, it would cause grave and irreparable prejudice to his defence in the pending appeal.

4.The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-

State provided a meticulous and sequential timeline of the evidence already recorded to demonstrate that the witnesses have been extensively cross- examined over the last fifteen years. He pointed out that PW1 was examined in chief on 07.06.2010, cross-examined on 01.11.2011, and was actually recalled for further cross-examination on 23.11.2021 i.e., ten years after his initial testimony. Regarding PW2, he was examined in chief on 07.07.2010 and was recalled for further cross-examination on several dates, namely 23.07.2010, 10.08.2010, and 07.09.2010, before being lastly cross-examined on 01.11.2011. Further, PW11 was examined in chief on 12.04.2011 and cross-examined on 22.02.2012. As for PW25, he was examined in chief on 23.01.2013 and was subjected to cross-examination on multiple dates, specifically 28.01.2013, 07.03.2013, 04.12.2021, and 15.02.2022. The r