State Rep By v. V.S. Chandrasekaran

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN State Rep By Inspector Of Police, Central Bureau Of Investigation, Anti-corruption Branch Shastri Bhavan, Numgambakkam, Chennai-600 006 ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. V.S. Chandrasekaran The Then Assistant Commissioner, Chennai-iv, Commissionerate, Central Excise, Poonamalee Division, Chennai

2. Mohammed Basha The Then Superintendent, Chennai-iv, Commissionerate, Central Excise, Poonamallee Division, Chenai

3. V.S.Kesavan The Then Superintendent, Chennai-iv, Commissionerate, Central Excise, Poonamallee Division, Chenai

4. Glovis India Pvt Limited F98, 8th Main Road, Sipcot Industrial Park, Irungattukottai, Kattrampakkam Village, Tamilnadu ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order dated 18.01.2024 in CC.No.49 of 2013 passed by the Learned XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai as far as it declines permission to prosecution to cross examine prosecution witness PW-21 and further to grant permission to prosecution to cross examine PW-21 in this case.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.K.Srinivasan Special Public Prosecutor For Respondent(s):

Mr. M.Palanivel For R1 Mr.N.Viswanathan For R3

ORDER

The revision has been preferred as against the order passed in C.C.No.49 of 2013 dated 18.01.2024 thereby refused to treat P.W.21 as a hostile witness.

2. On perusal of the records reveals that the respondents are facing trial in C.C. No. 49 of 2013 before the trial court. During the trial, L.W. 20 was examined as P.W. 21 on 14.07.2023. Thereafter, he was subjected to crossexamination on 25.07.2023 and 29.07.2023. On that day, the Public Prosecutor requested to re-examine him, which was allowed, and the re-examination took place on 11.10.2023 and 28.11.2023. Further, the prosecution requested the trial court to treat P.W. 21 as a hostile witness and sought permission to crossexamine him; however, A1 to A4 raised objections. It further reveals that P.W. 21 categorically deposed by reiterating the statement made under Section 161(3) of the Cr.P.C. during the investigation. Therefore, the trial court rightly rejected the request made by the learned Public Prosecutor to treat P.W. 21 as a hostile witness. Thus, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed in C.C. No. 49 of 2013 dated 18.01.2024.

3. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

05-06-2026 SMA

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

SMA 05-06-2026