Madras High Court
T.S.Kumaravel vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 April, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated:19/04/2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.MP(MD)No.7838 of 2021
in
Crl.A(MD)No.533 of 2019
1.T.S.Kumaravel
2.S.Thillai Uma Shanthi @
Uma Shanthi : Petitioners/A1 and A2
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by its
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Crime No.08 of 2008) : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been
filed under section 391 of Criminal Procedure Code, to
pass an order in the instant petition for reception of
additional evidence in the pending Crl.A No.533 of 2019.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan
Senior counsel
for Mr.A.Iruthayaraj
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
O R D E R
This criminal miscellaneous petition is filed under
section 391 Cr.P.C to receive the additional evidence in
the criminal appeal.
2.The facts in brief:-
The criminal appeal has been filed against the
conviction and sentence that has been passed by the trial
court by convicting the 1st accused and sentenced to
undergo 4 years SI and to pay a fine of Rs,50,000/-, in
default to undergo SI for 6 months for the offence under
section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act; convicted A2 and sentenced him to undergo
3 years SI and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to
undergo SI for 6 months for the offence under section
13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
r/w 109 IPC. The trial court has found that there was
disproportionate asset valued about Rs.7,47,938/-. But
that amount and the asset was acquired out of the
contribution of the second accused parents. But that
contention was rejected by the trial court on the ground
that the parents of the second accused had no source of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
income to make such a contribution. The view of the trial
court is under challenged now
3.Assailing such a finding only, this criminal
appeal has been preferred and this criminal miscellaneous
petition has been filed seeking permission to file
additional documentary evidence to show that contribution
has been made, out of the pensionary benefit, that was
derived by the father-in-law. But the prosecution
intentionally omitted to mark certain public documents
relating to the retirement and pensionary benefits. Now
the documents have been collected, which are mentioned in
the affidavit. Totally eight documents have been
collected and those documents falsify the case of the
prosecution.
4.The father-in-law M.Sudalaiyandu died, on
18/08/2020. He was examined, on 08/03/2019 before the
trial court. At that time, the documents, which now
sought to be produced were not within the knowledge of
the petitioners. So, the petitioners were not in a
position to produce those documents. Totally, Rs.
22,44,225/- was omitted to be included in the retirement
benefits and this is in addition to the amount of Rs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
28,00,000/- and if these documents are received as
additional evidence, as mentioned earlier, the finding of
the trial court can be set aside.
5.Counter has also been filed on the side of the
prosecution.
6.Heard both sides.
7.During the course of argument, the learned Senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
the document Nos.7 and 8 mentioned in the affidavit are
not relevant and in respect of those documents, the
petition can be dismissed. But in so far as the other
documents are concerned, according to him, those are only
public documents, evidentiary value cannot be disputed.
8.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners would straightaway rely upon the judgment of
this court in the case of State, rep. by Public
Prosecutor Vs. Sundar [2021 (5) CTC 140] and would
contend that when the documents sought to be produced are
capable of tilting the outcome of the case, then they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
must be received.
9.No doubt that additional evidence can be received,
if the petitioners are able to convince the court to the
effect that the delay on their part was not willful and
the documents, which sought to be produced were not
available in their hands at the time of trial.
10.The next ingredient is that the documents must be
capable of tilting the case in favour of the party, if
admitted. These twine conditions must be satisfied.
11.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
vehemently oppose this petition on the ground of delay.
He would further submit that the documents, which now
available in the hands of the petitioners, are public
documents, which would have been obtained the copy of the
same at the appropriate time. According to him,
absolutely, there is was due diligence on the part of the
petitioners in getting the documents. Having participated
in the trial process and having suffered a finding of
guilt and sentence, now in order to overcome the finding,
these documents sought to be produced. According to him,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
such a belated attempt on the part of the petitioners
should not be permitted and if such sort of practice is
permitted, then, according to him, there will be no end
to the proceedings.
12.No doubt that the parties must be vigilant and be
careful during the course of trial process. Here,
according to the petitioners, those documents were not
within the specific knowledge of the petitioners during
the process of trial and only belatedly, the father-in-
law through A2 informed about the availability of the
public documents. It is unthinkable that had the
petitioners enough knowledge about the availability of
the document, according to me, would not have omitted to
mark the documents. Because the accused persons will only
try to discharge the burden in disproving the case of the
prosecution. So when we apply the common sense to this
issue, without hesitation, we can hold that the
petitioners must be permitted to produce the documents,
which according to me, are capable of tilting the case in
their favour. Since the trial is the journey towards
finding truth, pursuit of that process, mere delay on the
part of the parties should not be given any undue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
importance. If such sort of attitude is employed, then
causality will be the justice. So, I am of the
considered view that the documents sought to be produced
can be admitted in evidence.
13.Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition
is allowed.
19/04/2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Note :
In view of the present
lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be
utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the
order that is presented
is the correct copy,
shall be the
responsibility of the
advocate/litigant
concerned.
Crl.MP(MD)No.7838 of 2021
in
Crl.A(MD)No.533 of 2019
19.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
