##PAGE1##

CRL OP No. 7362 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-03-2026

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

CRL OP No. 7362 of 2026 and

CRL MP No.5328 of 2026

Azhar @ Imamoli Petitioner(s)

Vs The Inspector of Police,

Villupuram Taluk Police Station, S.C.No.88 of 2023 in FIR.No.94/2020.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to set aside the order dated 03.02.2026 passed in Cr.M.P.No.5076/2025 in S.C.No.88/2023 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, allowing the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C., as being legally unsustainable and

prejudicial to the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Mugendran for Mr.B.William

For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor

1

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2026 04:34:19 pm )

CRL OP No. 7362 of 2026

ORDER

The petitioner, who is the accused in S.C.No.88 of 2023, has challenged

the order passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.5076 of 2025, whereby, the petition filed by the respondent/prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C, seeking permission to receive a C.D. and the certificate under Section 65-B of the

Indian Evidence Act, was allowed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, filing of a

petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C, is to introduce newly produced CD as M.O.No.13 along with a belated certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, as P.Ex.29 at the final stage of the trial, which is contrary to the

settled principles governing the exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

2.1. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge failed to

consider that the earlier electronic record filed was empty and that there was an unexplained delay in producing the alleged fresh material. It was also contended that there was no footage in the original hard disk or in the CD produced along with the charge sheet, and therefore, no primary or secondary

electronic evidence is collected.

2.2. It is further submitted that P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police who

2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2026 04:34:19 pm )

CRL OP No. 7362 of 2026

took part in the Investigation, claims that he had played the recordings on a computer, copied them into his mobile phone, and after five years, again copied the same from the mobile phone into a CD and attempted to mark it as material object. He submitted that the petitioner is facing trial for offences under Sections 148, 449, 506(ii), 302, 120-B and 436 IPC, Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act and the charges are serious in nature. In such circumstances, the respondent/Police cannot be permitted to act lethargically and introduce new materials at its convenience to secure a conviction. He also pointed out that P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.8 are the witnesses who have not supported the case of the prosecution. Thus, the root of the prosecution case has been cut, and thereafter, now at the belated stage, permitted the introduction of new material, which would amount to filling up the lacunae,

which is impermissible.

3. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner

relied upon the judgement in the case of Prabir Kumar Roy Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2009) SCC Online Jhar 1202, wherein it was held that Section 311 Cr.P.C does not connote or denote production and examination of any documents and it only can be used to summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or

3

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2026 04:34:19 pm )

CRL OP No. 7362 of 2026

recall and re-examine any person already examined, but new document cannot be introduced. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mayankkumar Natwarlal Kankana Patel and another Vs. State of Gujarat and another in SLP (Crl.A).Nos.1