Arivazhagan vs State, Represented By Inspector Of ... on 8 March, 2000
9. So far as examination of defence witnesses is concerned, the petitioner, as stated above, wanted to examine the officers of the CBI and some others as defence witnesses. It has not been made clear as to why they should be examined and how the petitioner will be prejudiced if they are not examined as defence witnesses. The provisions of Section 243(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended for Section 22 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Arivazhagan v. State, . That was a case in which the accused were tried by Special Court for facing a charge for the offence under Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said case, the prosecution examined a large number of witnesses by summoning as many as 41 persons. When the case reached the stage, as envisaged in Section 243(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused persons submitted a list of 267 witnesses for defence. The Special Judge made scrutiny of the list and dissected the names into four divisions.