Uncategorized

presence of new individuals, and the trial cannot be postponed indefinitely. In light of this, I find this petition to be both vexatious and an attempt to prolong the matter; thus, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be granted. 15. The Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition, finding no merits; therefore, the Crl.O.P.No.16540 of 2025 shall stand dismissed. Consequently, the associated miscellaneous petitions are closed. Jer 10.06.2025 Neutral Citation : Yes/No To 1.The Special Judge Special Court for trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai. 2.The Deputy Superintendent Police Special Investigation Cell Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Chennai – 28. 3.The Inspector of Police Special Investigation Cell Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, CIS Chennai. 4.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J, Jer

by Sekar Reporter · June 11, 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.O.P.Nos.16470 and 16540 of 2025
& Crl.M.P.Nos.10298 and 10346 of 2025

D.C.Ruskin …Petitioner in
both the Crl.O.Ps.

-Vs-
State by
Deputy Superintendent Police
Special Investigation Cell
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Chennai – 28. … Respondent in
Crl.O.P.No.16470 of 2025

State by
The Inspector of Police
Special Investigation Cell
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, CIS
Chennai. … Respondent in
Crl.O.P.No.16540 of 2025

Common Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure/528 of BNSS, to set aside the order passed by the Special Court for trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai dated 29.05.2025 made in Crl.M.P.Nos.79 and 80 of 2025 in C.C.No.33 of 2011 and allow the Criminal Original Petitions and pass such further or other orders.

In both the Crl.O.Ps:-
For the petitioners : Mr.S.Karthikeyan
For the respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor

COMMON ORDER

These two Criminal Original Petitions are filed by petitioner/accused No. 1 in C.C. No. 33 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for the trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, and are hereby taken up and disposed of by this common order.

2. Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2025 is filed under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 162 of the Indian Evidence Act, with a prayer to direct the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, to cause the production of the entire file in RC No.175/109071/PR-IV(3)/08 concerning the report of the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai, dated 28.11.2009 and the related records. Two parts of the same file, which pertain to the passing of the order of sanction, were directed to be produced. The second document, the appointment order of Mr.Nallammanaidu as the Officer on Special Duty at the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Chennai, is also directed to be produced. The said petition was contested by the prosecution through a detailed counter affidavit.

3. The Trial Court considered the matter and, by an order dated 29.05.2025, found that the Public Prosecutor’s contention that the petition was filed to drag out the proceedings was acceptable. It also determined that the petitioner had cross-examined P.W.2 – Rajendran, on 18.08.2011; therefore, the petition filed after 14 years was unacceptable. Regarding the document related to the order of appointment of Mr. Nallammanaidu, the Trial Court found that P.Ws.7 and 8 had already been cross-examined and denied the involvement of the said officer, concluding that the petition was filed without appropriate reason. Aggrieved by this, Crl.O.P.No.16470 of 2025 has been filed.

4. Mr. S. Karthikeyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi1, the right of the defence to summon the documents arises only at the defence stage, and therefore, the finding of the Trial Court that there is a delay of 14 years may not be correct. Further, the learned counsel would rely upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police Vs. S. Subbegowda2 to contend that the application of mind while granting sanction is not an empty formality, and if there is a non-application of mind and if there is a further failure of justice that has occurred on account of non-application of mind, that still provides a ground for the Trial Court to consider. Therefore, the file is relevant for the purposes of proving that there is complete non-application of mind with reference to the order of grant of sanction. The officer named in the petition, Mr. Nallammanaidu, is inimically disposed towards the petitioner/accused, and only after his assumption of charge was the entire situation set up; therefore, only in that regard was the order sought. He would submit that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the said petition.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that even if there is any flaw regarding the grant of sanction, it cannot serve as the basis for claiming acquittal under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Requesting the file as well as the appointment order is vexatious and is made belatedly.

6. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case. It is to be observed that the allegation in this case is that the first accused was an inspector of police and the second accused was the Head Constable. It is alleged that they demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as a bribe for closing a case as civil in nature against PW-3 on 17/12/2008. This is a case of trap.

7. With reference to the plea regarding the summoning of the file, it is evident that even when P.W.2 was recalled and cross-examined on 18.08.2011, the petitioner had already conducted a detailed cross-examination on this matter. Furthermore, concerning the note file, cross-examination was also carried out in detail, with questions about maintaining the files and the contents that should be included in them duly posed to P.W.2, from which answers were elicited. The same are extracted hereunder:-
“……nr’;c&d; nfl;L kD te;jhy; mjw;F vd;W xU nfhg;g[ jahhpg;gJ tHf;fk;/ me;j nfhg;g[ vd;gJ nehl;!; kw;Wk; mjDld; nrh;j;J Mtz’;fSld; nrh;j;J ,jDld; mjid g[l;mg; bra;thh;fs;/ me;j nehl; igiy mYtyfj;jpdh; mjid nkw;Fwpg;g[ bra;J nkyjpfhhp tiu bfhz;L bry;tjw;fhf vd;dplk; itg;ghh;fs;/ me;j igypy; cs;s Mtz’;fs; Kjd;ik Mtz’;fs; MFk;/ ,e;j nr’;c&d; cj;jut[ m/rh/M2I ghh;f;fhky; mjpy; rhl;rpfs; ahh; ahh; vd;W vd;dhy; Fwpg;gpl;L brhy;yKoahJ/ ,e;j tHf;fpy; irapd;ogpf; Kiwia Vd; ifahstpy;iy vd;w tptuk; vdf;F bjhpahJ/ mJ bjhlh;ghf chpa rkhjhdk; nfhg;gpy; brhy;yg;gltpy;iy/ ,e;j nr’;c&d; nfhhp bfhLf;fg;gl;l nfhhpf;if kDt[ld; khjphp nr’;c&d; cj;juita[k; nrh;j;J vdf;F mDg;gp itf;ftpy;iy/ ,e;j tHf;fpy; nr’;c&d; nfl;L fhyjhkjkhf te;jjw;fhd fhuzk; vd;d vd;w tptuk; me;j nfhg;gpy; brhy;yg;glhjjhy; vdf;F bjhpahJ/ ,e;j nr’;c&d; nfl;L bgwg;gl;l nfhg;g[ njjpapypUe;J 3 khj fhyj;jpw;F nr’;c&d; cj;jut[ bfhLf;fg;glntz;Lk; vd;w tptuk; vdf;F bjhpa[k;/
/////////////
/////////////
,e;j nr’;c&d; bfhLg;gjw;fhf vdf;F bfhLf;fg;gl;l nfhg;g[fis jtpu vd;bdd;d gpw nfhg;g[fs; bfhLf;fg;gl;lJ vd;W jw;nghJ vdf;F bjhpahJ/ Mdhy; nfhg;gpid ghh;j;jhy; brhy;y Koa[k;/
//////////
//////////”
8. Therefore, if the relevant file is not produced to the Court by the appropriate witness despite probing, all arguments of the petitioner remain available to be presented during arguments. It is only a repeated and second exercise that is now sought to be initiated. Opportunities do not exist to re-do what has already been completed, and even if the accused believes that it can be done better, it is not necessary to order the production of the file at this distant point in time. Similarly, the arguments of the Additional Public Prosecutor that it cannot be a subject matter for acquittal, along with the response of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it can still be considered with the other grounds, are all matters for final arguments. No further purpose will be served by summoning the documents. I see that the prayer is nothing but a vexatious attempt to prolong the matter.

9. The same applies to the appointment order of the said Nallammanaidu. Clearly, his order of appointment is unrelated to the case, particularly since the petitioner has already cross-examined P.Ws. 7 and 8. Therefore, I find no merits in the prayer made in Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2025. Accordingly, it was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court, and thus, Crl.O.P.No.16470 of 2025 shall stand dismissed.

10. Furthermore, Crl.M.P.No.80 of 2025 is filed to issue summons under Section 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code to an additional defense witness, Senthil.

11. When the matter was posted for defence evidence, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner to summon two witnesses, of which the accused examined one witness and dispensed with the other. It is now stated that the petitioner/accused, by oversight, omitted to mention the name of Senthil, who is now sought to be examined. As a matter of fact, it is further stated that P.W.3 – Abineshbabu himself mentioned the presence of Senthil. Furthermore, D.W.1 – Alaguraja also spoke about the presence of Senthil.

12. Therefore, Mr. Karthikeyan, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, submits that his examination is very crucial, especially given the facts and circumstances of the case. P.W.3, the decoy, was not cross-examined, and when his cross-examination was deferred, he unfortunately passed away. Consequently, the other witness who was present and witnessed the trap proceedings will be vital for the defense.

13. I have considered the arguments presented. As stated in the petition, P.W.3 – Abineshbabu did not mention the presence of Senthil. It is only the defense witness D.W.1 – Alaguraja who claims that Senthil was present. Therefore, it is the defense’s assertion that other witnesses were also present, and nothing prevented the defense from summoning him or including his name in the original list of witnesses. The stated reason for omitting his name due to oversight seems implausible. On the other hand, the defense now seeks to add similar witnesses one after another, to prolong the proceedings.

14. Above all, it is evident that the occurrence took place in the year 2008. Now, we are in the year 2025. The defense witness cannot continue speaking about the presence of new individuals, and the trial cannot be postponed indefinitely. In light of this, I find this petition to be both vexatious and an attempt to prolong the matter; thus, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be granted.

15. The Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition, finding no merits; therefore, the Crl.O.P.No.16540 of 2025 shall stand dismissed. Consequently, the associated miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Jer
10.06.2025
Neutral Citation : Yes/No

To
1.The Special Judge
Special Court for trial of cases under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.

2.The Deputy Superintendent Police
Special Investigation Cell
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Chennai – 28.

3.The Inspector of Police
Special Investigation Cell
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, CIS
Chennai.

4.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J,

Jer