Madras High Court
A.Chinnasamy vs The Inspector Of Police on 2 September, 2021
Crl.RC.No.488/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 02.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Crl.RC.No.488/2021 & Crl.MP.No.7923/2021
[Video Conferencing]
A.Chinnasamy ...Petitioner
Versus
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Salem. ...Respondent
Prayer : - Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w Section
401 of the Code of Procedure to set aside the order dated 13.07.2020 in the
memo in Special CC No.2 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge (Special
Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act) Salem.
For Petitioner : Mrs.AL.Ganthimathi
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Governmet Advocate
[Crl.Side]
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.RC.No.488/2021
ORDER
(1) The present Criminal Revision has been filed questioning the order
dated 13.07.2020 in a Memo filed by the present petitioner/accused in
Spl.CC.No.2/2015 which is now pending trial on the file of the
Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, in Salem District.
(2) The petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 7 read with
13[2] and 13[1][d] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Final
Report had been filed on 18.04.2018. Trial had commenced. Since
the trial is now underway, it will be extremely inappropriate for me to
examine the merits of the rival contentions of either the petitioner or
that of the prosecution.
(3) Be that as it may, during the course of trial, the prosecution tried to
introduce a particular document which was dated 14.10.2010. It must
be mentioned that in one of the places, the date has also been
mentioned as 14.10.2008. At any rate, more importantly, that
particular document appear to be a Xerox copy. It was part of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.RC.No.488/2021
document in a file which file was marked as Ex.C1 series on
examination of C.W.1, naturally as it indicates the Court Witness.
(4) Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi, learned counsel for the petitioner raised strong
objections to the very admissibility of the said document being the
Xerox copy and therefore, stated that it cannot even be looked into
during the course of trial or at any further point of time. Further, my
attention has also been drawn to an internal correspondence dated
12.03.2019 in Na.Ka.No.10/2019/A4 sent by the Tahsildar, Valapadi,
to the very Court at Salem, wherein the said Tahsildar had stated that
the said letter/document dated 14.10.2010 is not available in the
office of the Tahsildar, Valapadi. Pointing out this particular
correspondence, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the
introduction of the said document is a colourable exercise by the
prosecution and attacked the very genuinity of the document quite
apart from the fact that it is inadmissible owing to the fact that it is a
Xerox copy. However, the document as stated, had been marked,
viz., given an exhibit number by the Trial Judge. A Memo had been
filed by the petitioner/accused raising objections to either receiving of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.RC.No.488/2021
the said document or marking of the said document. The order passed
in the said Memo is the subject matter of the present Revision
Petition.
(5) As stated, the learned counsel was agitated over the fact that the
learned Judge had taken the said document on record in spite of
objections and it is also the grievance of the learned counsel that the
objections had not been properly addressed in the order now under
question in this Revision Petition. The learned Judge, in the course of
the order, had stated that the Memo is recorded regarding objections
raised by the petitioner in marking the Xerox copy and thereafter, it
was stated that the prosecution was permitted to mark the said Xerox
copy and the objections raised by the petitioner/accused are recorded.
(6) It is often seen that when Memos are filed in Trial Courts, a cursory
noting is made by the Trial Judges that Memos are recorded and this
noting often sends out an ambiguous signal as neither of the parties to
the litigation, in this case, the prosecution or the petitioner/accused,
know whether the objections have been accepted or the objections
have been rejected. Memo is simply taken and put in the Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.RC.No.488/2021
bundle as one among the other papers. But, more importantly, both
the prosecution and the accused should know whether the objections
are going to be dealt with at a future date or simply going to be
brushed away or have been accepted or have been rejected. It would
therefore, be only appropriate that the learned Judge, while stating
that the Memo is recorded, should also be little more expressive as to
whether objections have been accepted or objections have been
rejected or the said objections will be dealt with at a later point of
time. The later point of time would arise only when arguments are
advanced and judgment is to be pronounced on all aspects
surrounding the trial.
(7) That is the guideline which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
laid down in the decision reported in 2001 [3] SCC 1 [Bipin
Shanthilal Panchal V. State of Gujarat and Another], which
emanated from a criminal case and as a matter of fact, has been a
guiding principle during the marking of documents and objections
raised while marking of documents and the procedure to be adopted.
The Apex Court has very clearly stated that all documents except
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.RC.No.488/2021
inadequately stamped documents, can be taken on record subject to
objections and those objections should be addressed by the Court at
the time of delivering judgments. Therefore, it is also imperative that
the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused forward the objections
with respect to this particular document even at the time of arguments
and invites the learned Judge to give a definite ruling as to whether
the learned Judge is relying on the said document or not relying on
the said document while delivering the judgment in the main case.
(8) As on date, the document has been taken on file and exhibit number
has been given. By giving such number, it does not mean that the
document has been proved in the manner known to law or that it is
relate to the facts of the case. These are all aspects which will have to
be examined only on analysis of all other evidence let in by the
prosecution. This is one letter produced by the prosecution among
various other documents and its relevancy or otherwise can be
examined only on analysis of all the evidence, both oral and
documentary let by the prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.RC.No.488/2021
(9) But, let me restrict the evidence of the prosecution with respect to the
explanation regarding non production of the original of this particular
document since that onus was on C.W.1 when the document was
produced. C.W.1 has tendered in the chief examination, a particular
explanation, as to why the original document has not been produced.
That explanation should stand and that explanation should be tested
during the course of cross-examination. The prosecution cannot build
any further on that particular explanation. Let the arguments be
advanced with respect to the admissibility of the said document. The
document, as seen, is a secondary document and the original has not
been produced and nobody knows where the original is. Therefore,
these are aspects which are to be addressed during the course of
arguments. The petitioner herein can also cross-examine the witness
on the original of the said document and on its availability or non –
availability. These are all the issues which can be thrashed out only
at the time of trial.
(10) I am confident that the learned Judge would give full opportunity to
both the prosecution and the accused to do their best during the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.RC.No.488/2021
course of trial. Let the document stand as it is. But, its admissibility,
proof and relevancy should be addressed at the time of pronouncing
the main judgment after conclusion of trial. The learned Judge may
also take up the issue of putting questions to the accused on
conclusion of witness for the prosecution with respect to this
particular document also under Section 313[1][a] of Cr.P.C.
(11) Though the relief sought in the Revision Petition is not granted, the
Revision Petition stands disposed of, reverting the parties back to the
Trial Court. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
02.09.2021
AP
Internet : Yes
To
1. The Special Judge (Special Court for Trial of Cases under the
Prevention of Corruption Act),
Salem.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Salem.
3. The Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.RC.No.488/2021
High Court, Madras.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
AP
Crl.RC.No.488/2021
02.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
