Madras High Court
C. Samuel Johnson vs The State Rep By on 16 December, 2025
Author: M. Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M. Nirmal Kumar
CRL OP NO. 29235 OF 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-12-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL OP No. 29235 of 2025
C. Samuel Johnson
S/o.Christ Raj,
Joint Sub Registrar (In Charge),
O/o.Original Registration Branch,
North Chennai, Chennai-1.
Petitioner/Accused
Vs
The State Rep by,
The Inspector of Police,
City Special Unit-I,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Chennai-1.
Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023
praying to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.107 of 2025 in C.C.No.13 of 2014
in order dated 23.09.2025 on the file of the Special Court for the Cases Under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, at Chennai and set aside the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Vigneswaran
For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 03:53:55 pm )
CRL OP NO. 29235 OF 2025
ORDER
The petitioner/accused, who is facing trial in C.C.No.13 of 2014, filed a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall two witnesses namely, PW7/Trap Laying Officer and PW9/Investigating Officer to clarify with regard to Exs.D2 to D6 and the CCTV footage dated 23.01.2014.
2.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that in this case the alleged trap was laid on 23.01.2014. The petitioner earlier sought the CCTV recordings from the Joint Office of Sub Registrar-North Chennai to prove his defence that the trap was not conducted as projected by the prosecution. According to the petitioner, the Trap Laying Officer was not even present during the trap and it was one Chandrasekar, who was present there. Further, PW9/Investigating Officer was already present in the scene of trap and he has not conducted independent investigation. Hence, he sought for the CD recordings which was furnished to him under Right to Information Act (RTI) and thereafter he filed a petition under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.2380 of 2017 to permit him to play the Compact Disk (CD) and mark it as document. The trial Court by an order dated 19.12.2017 dismissed the same and held that CD and snap shot photos cannot be marked by consent and the same can be considered during cross examination of witnesses PW2, PW3, 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 03:53:55 pm ) CRL OP NO. 29235 OF 2025 PW4 and PW7. Thereafter the petitioner filed another petition in Crl.M.P.No.1296 of 2018 seeking to confront CDs, i.e., CCTV footage for the period 20.01.2014 and 22.01.2014 during the cross examination of PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW7. This petition was allowed by the trial Court by an order dated 30.11.2018. In the said order it is observed that prosecution failed to produce the CCTV footage for the happenings in the Sub Registrar Office on the date of trap and the accused collected the same through RTI and the accused can confront the CD and photographs with the prosecution witnesses and if the prosecution witnesses admit the same, the same can be marked. In the event of denying the documents, then the same can be marked through defence witnesses.
3.He further submitted that the prosecution filed counter in that petition, in which, the prosecution not denied the genuineness of the CD, since it was obtained through RTI from the concerned officials, but interpretation given to photographs and the explanation of the accused was not acceptable. In this case after obtaining order, the CD and snap shots were confronted to PW2/de-facto complainant, who admitted the same. Hence, CD marked as Ex.D1 and snap shots marked as Exs.D2 to D6. Thereafter the same was confronted with other witnesses, who also admitted the same. PW7, the Trap Laying Officer refused to view Exs.D2 to D6, despite, the same was brought on record as defence exhibits. PW9 though admitted the genuineness of Exs.D1 to D6, refused to 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 03:53:55 pm ) CRL OP NO. 29235 OF 2025 view the same and give any answer in the cross examination. Further PW9 in the counter to Crl.M.P.No.1296 of 2018 admits the CD and snap shots but refuses to answer. Hence, for this purpose he filed a recall petition in Crl.M.P.No.107 of 2025 to recall PW7 and PW9 to again confront Exs.D2 to D6.
4.He further submitted that PW2, PW3/official witnesses were with the officials of V & AC even prior to the date of trap and they are not independent witnesses and their evidence cannot be considered, but the trial Court on the objections of the respondent, dismissed the petition. Further, he reiterated that the genuineness of Exs.D1 to D6 are not in dispute in this case. Now the prosecution seems to discredit Exs.D2 to D6 by projecting that in Exs.D2 to D6 there are encircling of certain faces of the V & AC officials and hence they are morphed and doctored. In the CD there is no encircling, the same can be played and find out the genuineness of the snap shot for easy identification. During trial this encirclement made for easy identification which is now projected as though the documents morphed and tampered with. It is a new plea taken by the prosecution. To clarify all these aspects he needs examination of PW7/Trap Laying Officer and PW9/Investigating Officer. In support of his contention the learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the case of Anu, C.R. vs. State of Kerala in 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 03:53:55 pm ) CRL OP NO. 29235 OF 2025 Crl.MC.No.7885 of 2025 and the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sonu Alias Amar vs. State of Haryana reported in (2017) 8 SCC 570.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) filed his counter and submitted that the petitioner not cross examined the decoy, accompanying witness, Trap Laying Officer and other witnesses then and there, thereafter they were cross examined belatedly. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 and marked Exs.P1 to P20 and produced MO1 to MO3. The Trap Laying Officer/PW7 examined in chief by the prosecution on 16.06.2017. Whereas, the accused did not choose to cross examine him on that day. Later, during the next hearing, on 24.07.2017, the prosecution examined one Annamalai as PW8. Later, on 06.09.2017, the accused had chosen to file a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C in Crl.M.P.No.2204 of 2017 to recall PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW7 which was allowed. But without completing the cross examination of PW2, the accused filed a petition under Section 294 of Cr.P.C on 20.09.2017 in Crl.M.P No.2380 of 2017, which was disposed on 19.12.2017 with an observation that the CD can be played during cross examination of witnesses PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW7 and the investigation officer and can be marked through if they admit the same as defence document. Thereafter, the accused filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1296 of 2018 which was disposed by the Lower Court stating that if the CD is not disputed by the prosecution witnesses, 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 03:53:55 pm ) CRL OP NO. 29235 OF 2025 who are the officials or de-facto complainant, it could be read in evidence and marked through them. If not, the document has to be marked through the defence witness. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.11006 of 2025 before this Court. This Court, by an order dated 23.04.2025 ordered for the cross examination of PW7 on the same day of his appearance and thereafter to proceed with other witnesses. Therefore, the cross of PW7 was completed on 28.04.2025.
6.He further submitted that, the petitioner creates a doubt whether PW7 conducted the trap proceedings merely on the ground that PW7/TLO refused to see Exs.D2 to D6 challenging its genuineness. The petitioner alleges that it was only Chandhrasekar who conducted the trap. It is strongly denied. Even assuming that the said Chandhrasekaran was present during the trap proceedings, it does not mean that the trap was conducted by him. The Trap Laying team always comprises officers to assist the proceedings. Hence, he strongly objected the contention of the petitioner.
7.He further submitted that it is wrong to say that prosecution failed to raise objections earlier. The prosecution is raising his objections at each stage to prevent marking of unauthorised documents. He further doubted the genuineness of the snap shots and CDs. The encirclement in the snap shots 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 03:53:55 pm ) CRL OP NO. 29235 OF 2025 establish that the documents were in editable format and for that reason PW7 and PW9 disputed the authenticity of the CCTV footage contained in CD and snap shot taken from CD. PW7 and PW9 cannot be compelled to answer the manner in which the petitioner expects. They have given their answers to the questions put to them and raised doubt on the genuineness of the CCTV footage. The authenticity of documents Exs.D1 to D6 to be established by the accused, since the burden of proof lies on the accused and not on prosecution. Ex.D1 was not subjected to forensic examination. Hence, morphing of photographs as doubted by the prosecution is possible. The trial Court considering all the objections and finding that the case is of the year 2013 and it is almost 12 years, the case is yet to reach its finality and the petitioner has been dragging on the trial for one reason or other, had rightly dismissed the petition.
8.Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioner obtained Ex.D1, the CCTV footage under RTI, which is not in dispute. Earlier, petitioner attempted to mark the CD and snap shots under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. which was objected by the prosecution. Thereafter, he filed a petition to confront these documents during cross examination of prosecution witnesses, which was allowed on condition that if the prosecution witnesses admits the same, the same can be marked through them or else through defence witnesses. In this case PW2 admits Exs.D1 to D6 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 03:53:55 pm ) CRL OP NO. 29235 OF 2025 and thereafter Exs.D1 to D6 marked which was further confronted with the witnesses and with PW7/TLO and PW9/IO in this case. PW7 refused to look into Exs.D1 to D6. PW9 at the time of marking documents, in Crl.M.P.No.1296 of 2018 filed counter admitting the genuineness of the CD and snap shots, same recorded in the earlier orders of the trial Court. Now the question is not with regard to the genuineness and the mode of receipt of the defence exhibits. The prosecution claim is that the snap shots are in editable format, morphed, doctored, which is a belated objections now taken. Earlier no such objections raised. The only doubt caused is that there have been some encirclement of certain faces in Exs.D2 to D6, which according to the petitioner was made for easy identification during trial, and there was no objections then. For the first time such objection made which cannot be entertained.
9.This Court is not going into the contention and rival contention with regard to the encirclement as to whether it was made by the petitioner prior to trial or during trial. It is not in dispute that Exs.D2 to D6 are the snap shots collected from D1. Ex.D1 is with the trial Court. It is for the trial Court to view Ex.D1 and to satisfy itself about the snap shots/Exs.D2 to D6. Already Exs.D1, D2 to D6 marked as defence exhibits and while marking, there was no objection. It is also not in dispute that PW7 and PW9 refused to look into the photographs and answer in this regard. PW9 raises objection with regard to 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 03:53:55 pm ) CRL OP NO. 29235 OF 2025 encirclement and the dates found in the photographs. The dates might be the date of downloading the video from CCTV and not the date of recording. All these questions are left open, it is for the trial Court to consider all these points. Once PW7 and PW9 refused to answer, look into the photographs, no purpose will be served if they are recalled. The petitioner can take recourse to adverse inference against such refusal to answer and it is for the trial Court to consider whether the answer of PW7 and PW9 would fall under Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act. In such circumstances, now recalling PW7 and PW9 would serve no purpose and the case is at the defence stage. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition.
10.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
16-12-2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking order Neutral citation : Yes/No rsi 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 03:53:55 pm ) CRL OP NO. 29235 OF 2025 M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi To
1.The Special Judge, Special Court for the cases under PC Act, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police, City Special Unit-I, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai-1.
3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
CRL OP No. 29235 of 2025
16.12.2025 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 03:53:55 pm )