Madras High Court
State Represented By vs D.C. Ruskin on 2 January, 2020
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
Crl.O.P.No.33606 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.01.2020
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.O.P.No.33606 of 2019
State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Special Investigation Cell, Vigilance
and Anti-Corruption,
Chennai – 600 028. .. Petitioner/Complainant
Vs.
D.C. Ruskin ..Respondent
PRAYER:Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.918/2018
in C.C.No.33/2011 passed by the learned Special Court for the cases
under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai by its order dated
16.04.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.S. Karthikeyan
for Mr.Balaji Sankara Moorthy
For Respondent : Mr. C. Iyyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor.
1
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.O.P.No.33606 of 2019
ORDER
This petition is being filed by the petitioner to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.918/2018 in C.C.No.33/2011 passed by the learned Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, dated 16.04.2019.
2.The facts of the case is that the respondent/A1 was a Inspector of Police and he was implicated for the offence U/s 7 13(2) and 13(1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in C.C.No.12 of 2008 on the file of Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai. Hence, he filed a Crl.M.P.No.916 of 2018 in C.C.No.33 of 2011, seeking for a copy of the visitors Register for the period between 11.11.2008 to 30.12.2008 maintained at the office of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai. The case was registered in the year 2010, after a lapse of 8 years, the respondent filed a petition u/s 91 of Cr.P.C seeking for a copy of the visitors Register. The petitioner herein also filed a counter stating that the said Register was washed away in the floods during November 2015. The Trial Court allowed the said M.P. Vide order dated 16.04.2019, with a 2 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33606 of 2019 direction to the petitioner either to produce the said document or it will be presumed that the said documents are favourable to the respondent herein. As against the said order, the present petition is being filed.
3.Mr.C. Iyyappa Raj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the petitioner would submit that the case was registered in the year 2010 and the respondent filed a petition in the year 2018, after a lapse of 8 years, the records are not required and relevant for the respondent to prosecute the case.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that he filed Crl.M.P.No.916 of 2018 and also filed a separate petition U/s 91 of Cr.P.C and the same was allowed by the Trial Court and the Trial Court directed the petitioner herein to produce the documents as sought for by the respondent and the Trial Court also made that if the documents are not produced, adverse inference shall be drawn against the petitioner.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on a perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court, it is clear that the 3 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33606 of 2019 the said documents are not produced then the documents are favourable to the respondent.
6.In view of the above and the documents are lost in flood, forcing the petitioner to produce the document is not reasonable. Hence, this Court is inclined to issue a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the case on merits and in accordance with law as early as possible.
In the light of the above facts, this Crl.O.P. is disposed of, accordingly.
02.01.2020 smn Index:yes/no Internet:yes Speaking order/Non-speaking order To The Special Court for the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai. 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.33606 of 2019 M.DHANDAPANI,J.
smn Crl.O.P.No.33606 of 2019 02.01.2020 5 http://www.judis.nic.in