M.Anbuchezhian v. The State Rep By, The Deputy Superintendent Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR M.Anbuchezhian ... Petitioner Vs.

The State, Represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Cell, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai - 16.

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS, to set aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for the Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.420 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024 in C.C.No.8 of 2023 and issue suitable direction to furnish the documents as well as the legible copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution, which were mentioned in the petition.

For Petitioner :

Mr.A.Nagarajan For Respondent :

Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner / accused in C.C.No.8 of 2023 who is facing trial for offences under Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 109 of IPC had filed a petition before the trial Court under Section 207 of Cr.P.C in Crl.M.P.No.420 of 2024 seeking for certain documents on the ground of non-supply of legible copies and the trial Court, by order dated 10.12.2024 dismissed the same, against which, the present revision has been filed.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is facing trial along with five others. The petitioner is facing trial for charge of disproportionate assets. In the case of disproportionate assets, the petitioner

was explained what are the properties which are being projected against him and he has to give explanation for acquiring the properties for which, he needs the details of the properties which are relied by the prosecution. In this case the prosecution though stated that they listed the documents, which are not legible. Hence, he filed the petition before the trial Court, but the trial Court had arrived at a technical stand that the accused had acknowledged of receiving the documents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C and hence, the petition cannot be entertained. The delay of documents would very well give fundamental rights of defence, hence, he filed a petition. The further contention of the petitioner is that he had given a list seeking documents in Document Nos.12, 24,25, 27, 28, 29, 45, 52, 53, 54 & 55 and the same is scanned and reproduced hereunder:

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that all the documents mentioned in the petition were already served to the petitioner / accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C on 15.11.2023, whereas the petitioner accused has filed the petition just to drag on the proceedings. The statement of the account mentioned in Document No.12 is the savings bank account maintained in HDFC Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai in the name of Tmt.Vijaya Anbuchezhian (A2) in which the petitioner herein is a Joint Account Holder. Document No.45 is the statement of account maintained in State Bank of India, Periamet Branch, Chennai in the name of G.Karunakaran (father in law of A4). Document Nos.

53, 54 & 55 are the attested copies of the income tax returns filed by Vijaya (A2), Sironmani (A3), Karunakaran (father in law of A4) and Savithri (mother in law of A5). These are the documents filed by the petitioner's family members before the income tax authorities and the original of these documents are in possession with them. Likewise, Document No.

the original of which is available with her, who is the wife of the petitioner (A1). Hence seeking all these documents once again under Section 207 Cr.P.C would not be proper.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would further submit that he does not want to stand on technicality and the respondent is ready to serve the copies of documents which are sought by the petitioner and without any delay, the petitioner can collect the same and co-operate with the trial. He further submitted that he handed over all the documents expect the income tax returns of Savithiri for the assessment year 2013-14 which according to the prosecution that the said Savithiri had not filed the returns before the income tax authority and there is no income tax returns available.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will not be the reason for any delay in receiving the documents.

6. Considering the submissions made, this Court directs the respondent to serve copies of the documents sought for by the petitioner without delay and the petitioner is directed to receive the same and co-operate with the trial. The Trial Court to hand over the documents sought for by the petitioner.

7. This Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. 27.02.2025 NCC: Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No vji To

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Cell, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai - 16.

2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

vji 27.02.2025