J DURAIMUNUSAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the aforesaid criminal revisions have been preferred separately by the petitioners who are accused in the case in C.C. No. 10 of 2009 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI cases/IX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) The petitioners herein have sought an order to call for the records in Crl. M.P. Nos. 400 of 2009, 399 of 2009, 397 of 2009, 398 of 2009,395 of 2009 and 396 of 2009 in C.C. No. 10 of 2009 on the file of the Court below and to set aside the order, dated 21.8.2009, thereby discharge the petitioners/accused from the charges framed against them.

(3.) Dr. A.E. Chelliah, learned senior counsel appearing for all the revision petitioners submitted that the petitioners have established that they are entitled to be discharged from the alleged offence attributed against them by the respondent/prosecution and that they had filed written submission bringing out the hollow-ness of the prosecution case and the documents referred to by the prosecution, however, the petitions, seeking discharge of the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were dismissed by the Court below, without considering the same on merits. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and argued that the attendance register relating to the accused A1 and A2 was tampered with by their superior officer, in order to convict the accused and further contended that the relevant portion of the document relating to the accused have been erased by using blade. According to the learned senior counsel, one Arivumani, clerk shown as L.W.7, on the instructions of Ramasamy, Sub-Inspector of Police, who maintained the attendance register had tampered with the attendance register, however, he was cited only as witness and the learned senior counsel also brought the statement of the Arivumani to the notice of this Court, which reads in Tamil as follows: