D NARMPERUMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and two others are being tried before the Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, for offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The trial went on for three years and the prosecution examined 26 witnesses in the first instance and closed its side. The prosecution relied on the evidence of one Divisional Manager of the National Textile Corporation, who was examined as P.W. 7; in respect of the perpetration of the offences. In an attempt to discredit the evidence of P.W. 7, the defence attempted to bring out certain information relating to the charges of corruption levelled against P.W.7 and for the purpose sought to summon P.W.7 and the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Madras, who is said to have conducted the enquiries with references to the allegations of corruption against P.W.7, and also two other witnesses, by filling an application, before the Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The learned Sessions Judge refused to summon. P. W. 7 and the Superintendent of Police, C.B I., Madras, and issued summons only to the other two witnesses. As against the said order the petitioner filed Cr1. R.C. ONo. 345 of 1982 and Natarajan, J., allowed the revision and conceded the request for examination of P.W.7 and the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Madras, as defence witnesses and at the same time directed that the examination of the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Madras, should be confined only to peripheral matters regarding the nature of the case against P.W.7 and the examination should not go into the details of investigation of the cases registered against P.W.7. A suggestion was put to P.W.7 in the course of cross examination that P.W.7 was deposing falsely at the instance of prosecution since otherwise the prosecution will take action against him relating to the cases pending against him. Even in Cr1. No. 345 of 1982 as argument was advanced that P.W.7 was examined in Court on 7-3-1981 and the case against P.W.7 was registered only on 3-1-1982 and hence the fact of registration of case against P.W.7 is not relevant for the purpose of enquiry and the said argument was negatived by the learned Judge on the ground that preliminary investigation might have been taken against P.W.7 on 7-3-1981 and on the account the request for summoning P.W.7 cannot be rejected. The abovesaid two witnesses were subsequently examined and during the examination of the Superintendent of Police, CB.I., Madras, who was examined as D. W.2, he deposed that four cases have been registered against P.W.7 with C B.I. in S.C. Nos. 3/82 and 4/82 on 31-1-1982, S.C. No. 52/82 on 29-9-1982 and S.C. No. 58/82 on 17-11-1982. He also deposed that he received information regarding the said four cases on 6-1-1982, 22-12-1982, 23-1-1982 and 7-10-1982, respectively. He also deposed that cases were registered on the course report given by C.B.I. D.W.2 was further asked in cross examination as to the name of the police officer who gave the source report and an objection was taken to this question under section 125 of the Evidence Act, which was entertained by the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) The attempt on the part of the defence is that the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Madras, who was examined as D.W.2 is the very same person who investigated the offences against P.W.7 and hence P.W.7 is compelled by circumstances to support the prosecution as otherwise cases will be filed against P.W.7.

(3.) The point for determination in this petition is whether D.W.2 can be compelled to divulge the name of the Police Officer who gave the source report in respect of the offences against P.W. 7.