Madras High Court
R.Christopher vs State Rep.Through on 26 June, 2023
CRL.R.C.(MD).No.638 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE : 26.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
CRL.R.C.(MD).No.638 of 2023
in
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9016 of 2023
R.Christopher : Petitioner
Vs.
State rep.through
the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Kanyakumari District,
Nagercoil. : Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397(1)
r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records and to set aside the order passed
in C.M.P.No.2314 of 2023, dated 13.04.2023 in Spl.Case No.1 of 2010
pending on the file of the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nagercoil.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ramanathan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
CRL.R.C.(MD).No.638 of 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order passed
in C.M.P.No.2314 of 2023, dated 13.04.2023 in Spl.Case No.1 of 2010
pending on the file of the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nagercoil, dismissing the petition filed under Section 243
Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Spl.Case No.1 of 2010 and
is facing trial under Section 7 r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act.
3. It is not in dispute that the prosecution has already examined 24
witnesses and the prosecution evidence was closed and that thereafter, the
petitioner has filed a list of defence witnesses, seeking permission to
examine four witnesses on his side and three of them have already been
examined and that thereafter, the petitioner has closed his defence side
evidence. When the matter is pending for argument, the above application
came to be filed seeking permission to examine one another witness by
name Murugan. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
at the time of occurrence, there was a fight between the petitioner and P.W.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.(MD).No.638 of 2023
2 and the same was witnessed by the proposed witness Murugan. The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit
that the petitioner has already examined two witnesses D.W.2 and D.W.3
for the very same purpose, i.e., witnessing the alleged occurrence.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for the
purpose of strengthening his case, he has filed the above case to examine
the said Murugan.
5. The learned Special Judge has rightly relied on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arivazhagan Vs. State reported in 2000
SCC CRI 638, and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder :
“It is thus noticeable that one of the main objects sought
to be achieved through insertion of Section 7A was speedy trial
for cases relating to the problem of corruption. When we read
Section 22 of the PC Act which requires a particular procedure
to be followed relating to the filing of list of witnesses and
documents for the defence, it must be borne in mind that the
legislative intent for the aforesaid change in the procedure is
mainly for achieving expeditiousness of the trial. It is true that
the concept of speedy trial must apply to all trials, but in the
trials for offences relating to corruption the pace must be
accelerated with greater momentum due to a variety of reasons.
Parliament expressed grave concern over the rampant ever-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.(MD).No.638 of 2023
growing corruption among public servants which has been a
major cause for the demoralisation of the society. When corrupt
public servants are booked they try to take advantage of the
delay proned procedural trammels of our legal system by
keeping the penal consequences at bay for a considerable time.
It was this reality which impelled the Parliament to chalk out
measures to curb procrastinating procedural clues. Section 22
of the P.C. Act is one of the measures evolved to curtail the
delay in corruption cases. So the construction of Section 243(1)
of the Code as telescoped by Section 22 of the PC Act must be
consistent with the aforesaid legislative intent.”
6. To counter this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
on the decision of Chhattisgarh High Court in Lalit Kumar Panigrahi Vs
State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2014 CRI L J 2794 and wherein, the
High Court has held that three persons sought to be examined are relevant
witnesses, which cannot be refused.
7. In the present case, the petitioner has already examined two
witnesses. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, the petitioner has not given any detail about the purpose, for
which, the proposed witness is sought to be examined and he has not
offered any reason or explanation for not citing the proposed witness
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.(MD).No.638 of 2023
earlier in the list of witnesses and not examining the proposed witness
earlier. The learned trial Judge, after considering the issues elaborately has
come to the decision that the above petition came to be filed only to
protract the proceedings. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the impugned order dismissing the petition cannot be found fault
with. Hence, this Court concludes that the Criminal Revision is devoid of
merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the Criminal Revision is dismissed. Since the
Special Case is pending from 2010 onwards, the learned Special Judge is
directed to dispose of the case within one month from the date of receipt
of copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
26.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
das
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.R.C.(MD).No.638 of 2023
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
das
To
1.The Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Nagercoil.
2.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Order made in
CRL.R.C.(MD).No.638 of 2023
in
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9016 of 2023
26.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
