Allowed

D.Jayakumar v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Dec 2024CRL RC/2363/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision case concerning a trial for corruption charges, the High Court allowed the petitioner's application to summon a Fisheries Department official. The Court set aside the lower court's dismissal, holding it premature to assess document relevancy at that stage and emphasizing the accused's right to formally prove facts disclosed during examination under Section 313.

What did the court decide?

The order passed in Crl.M.P.No.739 of 2024 is set aside; the petitioner must apply for summons before the trial court.

D.Jayakumar Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL.R.C.No.2363 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.18199 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 20.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.2363 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.18199 of 2024

D.Jayakumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

State Rep.by Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption City Special Unit-I Chennai 600 028

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS Act, 2023, to call for the records culminating in the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 partly dismissing the Crl.M.P.No.739 of 2024 in C.C.No.29 of 2013 by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai and set aside the same and consequently allow the examination of Assistant Director, Fisheries and Fisherman Welfare, Royapuram, Chennai.

¶13

1/4

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

CRL.R.C.No.2363 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.18199 of 2024

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar Pandian For Respondent : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner herein is facing trial for charges U/s.7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case is posted for arguments. In this circumstances, the petitioner has taken out Crl.M.P.No.739 of 2024 for summoning a certain official of the Fisheries Department, who indeed had nominated one of its officials as the shadow witness for the trap. The petitioner submits that he had obtained certain documents which will not predict or disprove the prosecution case that the shadow witness was present at the time of trap. Whatever documents which he considers relevant to his defence, he had enclosed it along with his written submissions during the questioning U/s.313 Cr.P.C. Now, he requires to prove those documents formally. It is for this purpose, he had taken out this application which the trial Court

¶19

had dismissed on the ground that they are not relevant to the issue.

¶20

2/4

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

CRL.R.C.No.2363 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.18199 of 2024

¶23

2.Heard both sides. This Court considers that it may be too premature a stage for the Court to come to a conclusion about the relevancy of the documents which the petitioner likes to present. Indeed, U/s.11 of the Evidence Act, 1872, any fact which makes the cause of action probable or improbable is relevant, and in criminal cases an accused is only required to create an improbability of the prosecution case vis-a-vis proof of any specific fact. This apart, when the petitioner relies on certain documents as his defence and disclosed it during 313 Cr.P.C. questioning stage, it is only appropriate that he is given an opportunity to prove them formally, since introduction of a document merely during Section 313 questioning does not amount to proof of the contents of the documents.

¶24

3.In view of the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The order passed in Crl.M.P.No.739 of 2024, in C.C.No.29 of 2013 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, is hereby set aside. The petitioner is required to apply for summons before the trial Court on

¶25

3/4

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

CRL.R.C.No.2363 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.18199 of 2024

¶28

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

¶29

kas

¶30

23.12.2024. It is underscored that witness shall be examined by the petitioner on the day he appears before the Court. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶31

20.12.2024

¶32

kas Note: Issue order copy on 20.12.2024 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation

¶33

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

¶34

2.Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption City Special Unit-I Chennai 600 028

¶35

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104

¶36

Crl.R.C.No.2363 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.18199 of 2024

¶37

4/4

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

D.Jayakumar v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Jayakumar v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.V. Madhavan (Died) Vs R.Saravanan (Deceased)

Vigneshwaran Vs the Director

K.Sema Kumar Vs the State Represented by Inspector of Police

Mr. Muthuswamy Vs the District Collector

Abraham, M/37 Yrs, A1 Vs the State Rep. by

Mohamed Ali Vs the Intelligence Officer