G. KANNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is arrayed as Accused No. 1 in Special Case No. 50 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act cases, Madurai and aggrieved by the order, dated 04.02.2015, made in Crl.M.P. No. 1175 of 2014, in and by which, the trial Court has entertained and allowed the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., has filed this Criminal Original Petition.

(2.) THE facts of the case would disclose that the petitioner/A1 while working as Office Assistant in the Department of Employment and Training at various places including Dindigul and Madurai, between 31.12.1991 and 05.04.2002 has accumulated wealth disproportionate to the known sources of his income and the value of the disproportionate asset is worth about Rs. 22,16,364/ -. The wife of the petitioner also prosecuted and she is arrayed as Accused No. 2. The trial of the case was over and posted for arguments and at that juncture, the prosecution has filed the above said Petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. stating among other things that the case of the prosecution was closed on 31.07.2013 and on a perusal of the case records, it came to light that the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Southern Range, Vigilance and Anti -Corruption, Madurai, dated 26.03.2002 and another proceedings of the same official dated 02.12.2004 received under Section 17(2) and 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to authorise P.Ws.37 and 38, to conduct investigation have not been marked as Exhibits, though the said documents were available in the case bundle. It is further stated that the said omission is purely an inadvertent one and therefore, prayed for marking those documents.

(3.) THE trial Court has taken into consideration the submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties on either side and other facts and circumstances, found that the said documents were already available in the case bundle and hence, there cannot be any impediment permitting the prosecution to mark those two documents and petitioners/accused are also having ample opportunities to question the concerned witnesses through whom the said documents going to be marked. Citing the said reason, the trial Court allowed the petition vide the impugned order dated 04.02.2015 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/A1 has filed this revision.