Madras High Court
R.Devadoss vs The Assistant Director on 14 November, 2025
Crl.O.P.No.2651 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.11.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
Crl.O.P.No.2651 of 2025
1. R.Devadoss
2. S.Saraswathy .. Petitioners
Vs.
The Assistant Director
Director of Enforcement
Government of India
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue
Shastri Bhavan
3rd Floor, 3rd Block
No.26, Haddows Raod
Chennai 600 006. .. Respondent
Prayer : Petition filed under Section 428 of Cr.P.C./under Section
528 of B.N.S.S. to call for the records culminating in
Crl.M.P.No.3528 of 2023 in C.C.No.3 of 2014 on the file of Principal
Sessions Judge, Chennai, Special Court constituted under Section
43 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and set aside
the order dated 08.06.2023.
____________
Page 1 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.2651 of 2025
For Petitioners : Mr.Ali Hassan Khan
For Respondent : Mr.Rajinish Pathiyil
Special Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the trial Court,
allowing prosecution application for examination of nine more
witnesses, is assailed mainly on the ground that initially, when the
charge sheet was filed, the prosecution had enlisted only two
witnesses to be examined as prosecution witnesses to prove the
predicate offences, however, during the course, Crl.O.P.No.28716 of
2021 was filed, wherein, this Court, by order dated 16.10.2014,
quashed the criminal case insofar as the alleged commission of
offence under Sections 406 and 420, IPC (FIR No.391 of 2010) is
concerned. Though SLP has been filed, there is no interim order.
2. Case of the petitioner is that during trial, application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution seeking to examine
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
nine more witnesses without stating sufficient grounds as to why
those witnesses were not included as witnesses. The application
was also stated to be blissfully vague as it does not contain any
averments as to how these witnesses were involved, whether their
statements under Section 161 or otherwise were recorded or how
they were relevant witnesses to prove the case of the prosecution in
respect of other predicate offences. By the impugned order dated
08.06.2023, the trial Court, taking into consideration the nature of
accusation and the submission of the prosecution, has allowed the
application giving rise to this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. (as
it then was prior to amendment by which, now old Act has been
substituted as B.N.S.S.).
3. Assailing the correctness and validity of the order passed
by the trial Court, learned counsel for petitioners would submit that
there was not only undue delay, but there was hardly any
explanation offered by the prosecution while submitting application
seeking inclusion of more witnesses as prosecution witnesses,also
seeking to examine certain witnesses who are alleged to be
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
witnesses to prove allegations pertaining to criminal case in relation
to FIR No.391 of 2010 which stands quashed.
4. It is further contended that the trial Court, while allowing
application by the impugned order, did not apply its mind and
allowed to examine even those witnesses who are not concerned
with those predicate offences in respect of which the trial is
presently going on.
5. Allowing prosecution's application mechanically to examine
more prosecution witnesses, long after the criminal case was
registered and trial began, would result in endless proceedings and
would thus amount to abuse of process of law.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent would
submit that though the offences were initially registered in the year
2010, concerning several offences under different crime numbers,
investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed in the year
2014. The delay in completion of trial was mainly because of an
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
interim order passed in Crl.O.P.No.20299 of 2017, which was finally
concluded on 13.07.2020. Thereafter, due to Corona, there was no
material progress in trial. Application under Section 311, Cr.P.C.
was filed on 13.02.2022 seeking permission to examine most
material witnesses, details of which have been given in the
application itself.
7. The application itself shows how those persons are material
witnesses for the prosecution case. Therefore, only on the ground
as to how those persons were involved during the course of
investigation and whether their statements were recorded, would
not, in any manner, restrict the power of the criminal court trying
the offence to examine new witnesses, even though they may not
have been initially included as witnesses in the charge sheet.
8. On the third aspect with regard to inclusion of two
witnesses, namely D.K.Adhikari and G.Nagarajan, who essentially
are related to Crime No.391 of 2010 is concerned, learned State
counsel would fairly submit that since the predicate offence in this
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
regard stands quashed, but as the matter is pending in the
Supreme Court, they would be awaiting the verdict of the Supreme
Court and depending upon the verdict, these witnesses may be
examined by the prosecution in case occasion so arises.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the contents of the application filed under Section 311, Cr.P.C. and
also the order impugned passed by the trial Court on 08.06.2023.
10. The grounds of challenge to the order under Section 311
is three fold.
10.1. The first ground relates to the delay. In this regard, we
find that the charge sheet was filed after the completion of
investigation in the year 2014. Filing of charge sheet in respect of
an allegation of commission of offence in 2010 was not assailed in
any Court of law. While the trial was being conducted,
Crl.O.P.No.20299 of 2017 was filed before the Court seeking to
challenge the very jurisdiction of the Court to try the offence. An
interim order was passed and criminal petition remained pending
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
until it was finally dismissed on 13.07.2020. Therefore, it cannot be
said that because of the reasons attributable to the failure on the
part of the prosecution, the trial was delayed.
10.2. It is common knowledge that Court can take judicial
notice of the fact that the date on which Crl.O.P.No.20299 of 2017
was dismissed, that was the period when the Court proceedings
were also paralysed due to onset of Covid pandemic. The
application for examination of additional nine witnesses was filed on
01.03.2022. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any
inordinate delay on the part of the prosecution or that at a very
advanced stage of trial, when it was about to conclude, an
application was filed.
10.3. As regards the other reason that the application seeking
to examine additional witnesses did not show any relevance as to
how the material witnesses would prove the case of prosecution, a
perusal of the application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. would show
that the prosecution has given in detail the reasons therefor in
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
paragraph 5 of the application, which is re-produced herein below:
“5. The Petitioner submits that the Defacto
complainants in the predicate offence and other witnesses
were not included in the list of witnesses annexed to the
present complaint. Further, the Sub-Inspector who has
registered the aforementioned FIRs and the Sub-Registrar,
who registered those properties, which were acquired out of
proceeds of crime, were also not included as witnesses in the
instant case. Those witnesses mentioned herein below are
very essential witnesses to unfold the true story of the entire
incident and for reaching a just decision in the above case by
this Hon’ble Court. The Petitioner should not be deprived in
the above case, his valuable right of examining the said
witnesses to prove his case and this could be ensured only
when the above persons are issued with summons to be
examined as a witness. If the below mentioned witnesses are
examined, it will not change the nature of the case against
either of the parties and no prejudice will be caused to the
respondents. The additional witnesses are as follows:
(i) Shri. S.Vivek, S/o. Shri Sivasamy (Complainant in
FIR No.277/2010).
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
(ii) Shri. D.K.Adhikari, Deputy Manager, Indian Oil
Corporation, (Complainant in FIR No.391/2010).
(iii) Shri M.Sathyanarayana, (Complainant in
FIR.No.350/2010).
(iv) Shri S.Kalyanasundaram (Complainant in FIR
No. 349/2010).
nd
(v) Shri G.Madhavan (Husband of the 2
Respondent/Accused2).
(vi) Shri N.Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, E-3
Minjur Police Station (Related to FIR 277/2010)
(vii) Shri G.Nagarajan, Inspector of Police, E-3
Minjur Police Station (Related to FIR 391/2010)
(viii) Shri C.Shanmugam, Sub-lnspector of Police, E-3
Minjur Police Station (Related to FIR 349/2010 & 350/2010)
(ix) Shri P.Sundar (Sub-Registrar Thiruvottiyur,
Chennai)”
10.4. A perusal of the same would show that the application
for examination of additional witnesses was not baseless or without
any material. Beyond that, in proceedings under Section 311,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
Cr.P.C, the Court would not be required to go into details as to
whether those witnesses, if at all examined, would be reliable or
not.
10.5. The order which has been passed by the trial Court on
08.06.2023 takes into consideration the contents of the application
under Section 311, Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution.
11. The legal position with regard to powers of the Court to
direct presence of any other witnesses or re-examination of the
witnesses already examined is no longer res integra. We may
usefully refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of
Zahira Habibu H S v Stat o Gujarat1 and Rajaram
Pr Yadav v Stat o Bihar2.
12. In the case of Zahira Habibu H S (supra), the
Apex Court has held as under:
“43. The Courts have to take a participatory role in a
(2004) 4 SCC 158
(2013) 14 SCC 461
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
trial. They are not expected to be tape recorders to record
whatever is being stated by the witnesses. Section 311 of the
Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act confer vast and
wide powers on Presiding Officers of Court to elicit all
necessary materials by playing an active role in the evidence-
collecting process. They have to monitor the proceedings in
aid of justice in a manner that something, which is not
relevant, is not unnecessarily brought into record. Even if the
prosecutor is remiss in some ways, it can control the
proceedings effectively so that ultimate objective i.e. truth is
arrived at. This becomes more necessary where the Court has
reasons to believe that the prosecuting agency or the
prosecutor is not acting in the requisite manner. The Court
cannot afford to be wishfully or pretend to be blissfully
ignorant or oblivious to such serious pitfalls or dereliction of
duty on the part of the prosecuting agency. The prosecutor
who does not act fairly and acts more like a counsel for the
defence is a liability to the fair judicial system, and Courts
could not also play into the hands of such prosecuting agency
showing indifference or adopting an attitude of total
aloofness.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
44. The power of the Court under Section 165 of the
Evidence Act is in a way complementary to its power under
Section 311 of the Code. The section consists of two parts i.e
(i) giving a discretion to the Court to examine the witness at
any stage and (ii) the mandatory portion which compels the
Court to examine a witness if his evidence appears to be
essential to the just decision of the Court. Though the
discretion given to the Court is very wide, the very width
requires a corresponding caution. In Mohan Lal v. Union of
India (1991 Supp (1) SCC 271) this Court has observed,
while considering the scope and ambit of Section 311, that
the very usage of the word such as, 'any Court' 'at any stage',
or 'any enquiry or trial or other proceedings' 'any person'
and 'any such person' clearly spells out that the Section has
expressed in the widest-possible terms and do not limit the
discretion of the Court in any way. However, as noted above,
the very width requires a corresponding caution that the
discretionary powers should be invoked as the exigencies of
justice require and exercised judicially with circumspection
and consistently with the provisions of the Code. The second
part of the section does not allow any discretion but obligates
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
and binds the Court to take necessary steps if the fresh
evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the
case “essential”, to an active and alert mind and not to one
which is bent to abandon or abdicate. Object of the Section is
to enable the Court to arrive at the truth irrespective of the
fact that the prosecution or the defence has failed to produce
some evidence which is necessary for a just and proper
disposal of the case. The power is exercised and the evidence
is examined neither to help the prosecution nor the defence, if
the Court feels that there is necessity to act in terms of
Section 311 but only to subserve the cause of justice and
public interest. It is done with an object of getting the
evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth.
45. It is not that in every case where the witness who
had given evidence before Court wants to change his mind
and is prepared to speak differently, that the Court concerned
should readily accede to such request by lending its
assistance. If the witness who deposed one way earlier comes
before the appellate Court with a prayer that he is prepared
to give evidence which is materially different from what he
has given earlier at the trial with the reasons for the earlier
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
lapse, the Court can consider the genuineness of the prayer
in the context as to whether the party concerned had a fair
opportunity to speak the truth earlier and in an appropriate
case, accept it. It is not that the power is to be exercised in a
routine manner, but being an exception to the ordinary rule of
disposal of appeal on the basis of records received in
exceptional cases or extraordinary situation the Court can
neither feel powerless nor abdicate its duty to arrive at the
truth and satisfy the ends of justice. The Court can certainly
be guided by the metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff,
and in a case which has telltale imprint of reasonableness
and genuineness in the prayer, the same has to be accepted,
at least to consider the worth, credibility and the
acceptability of the same on merits of the material sought to
be brought in.
46. Ultimately, as noted above, ad nauseam the duty of
the Court is to arrive at the truth and subserve the ends of
justice. Section 311 of the Code does not confer on any party
any right to examine, cross-examine and re-examine any
witness. This is a power given to the Court not to be merely
exercised at the bidding of any one party/person but the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
powers conferred and discretion vested are to prevent any
irretrievable or immeasurable damage to the cause of society,
public interest and miscarriage of justice. Recourse may be
had by Courts to power under this section only for the
purpose of discovering relevant facts or obtaining proper
proof of such facts as are necessary to arrive at a just
decision in the case.'
13. The Supreme Court, in the case of Rajaram Pr
Yadav (supra), has held as under:
“17. From a conspectus consideration of the above
decisions, while dealing with an application under Section
311, Cr.P.C. read along with Section 138 of the Evidence Act,
we feel the following principles will have to be borne in mind
by the Courts:
17.1. Whether the Court is right in thinking that the
new evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence sought to
be led in under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a just
decision of a case?
17.2. The exercise of the widest discretionary power
under Section 311 CrPC should ensure that the judgment
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive and
speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of
justice would be defeated.
17.3. If evidence of any witness appears to the Court
to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the power
of the Court to summon and examine or recall and re-
examine any such person.
17.4. The exercise of power under Section 311 CrPC
should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the
truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts, which will lead
to a just and correct decision of the case.
17.5. The exercise of the said power cannot be dubbed
as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case, unless the facts
and circumstances of the case make it apparent that the
exercise of power by the Court would result in causing
serious prejudice to the accused, resulting in miscarriage of
justice.
17.6. The wide discretionary power should be
exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
17.7. The Court must satisfy itself that it was in every
respect essential to examine such a witness or to recall him
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of
the case.
17.8. The object of Section 311 CrPC simultaneously
imposes a duty on the Court to determine the truth and to
render a just decision.
17.9. The Court arrives at the conclusion that
additional evidence is necessary, not because it would be
impossible to pronounce the judgment without it, but because
there would be a failure of justice without such evidence
being considered.
17.10. Exigency of the situation, fair play and good
sense should be the safe guard, while exercising the
discretion. The Court should bear in mind that no party in a
trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if
proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was
not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court
should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be
rectified.
17.11. The Court should be conscious of the position
that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners and the
Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
manner possible. In that parity of reasoning, it would be safe
to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather
than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at
the cost of the accused. The Court should bear in mind that
improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary
power, may lead to undesirable results.
17.12. The additional evidence must not be received as
a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of
the party.
17.13. The power must be exercised keeping in mind
that the evidence that is likely to be tendered, would be
germane to the issue involved and also ensure that an
opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party.
17.14. The power under Section 311 CrPC must
therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the
ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same
must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. The
Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of
the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the
grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons
concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
well as a human right.”
13. In conclusion, we are of the view that the order passed by
the trial Court in allowing the prosecution to examine more
witnesses does not suffer from any patent illegality nor can it be
said to be abuse of process of law.
14. However, there are two witnesses, namely G.Adhikari and
G.Nagarajan, who apparently are the witnesses which the
prosecution intends to examine to prove predicate offences relating
to Crime No.391 of 2010. It is an admitted position as on record
that the predicate offences in connection with Crime No.391 of 2010
has since been quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.28716 of 2010
by order dated 16.10.2014. Though SLP is pending, there is no
interim order. Therefore, no trial may be conducted in respect of
those offences. Obviously, there will be no requirement for the
prosecution to presently examine the two witnesses D.K.Adhikari
and G.Nagarajan as prosecution witnesses. However, it will be open
for the trial Court to proceed to examine all other witnesses who
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
have been allowed as prosecution witnesses vide order dated
08.06.2023.
15. In the result, petition is partly allowed only to the extent
of inclusion of D.K.Adhikari and G.Nagarajan is concerned subject to
the observations made herein above.
16. For many reasons beyond control, the trial, which was
initiated way back in 2014, has been pending since long time.
Therefore, the trial Court is directed to expeditiously conclude the
trial without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the
parties. Prosecution witnesses once produced in Court shall be
examined and no adjournment be granted to any of the parties.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
14.11.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kpl
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
To
The Assistant Director
Director of Enforcement
Government of India
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue
Shastri Bhavan
3rd Floor, 3rd Block
No.26, Haddows Raod
Chennai 600 006.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(kpl)
14.11.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:29:10 pm )
