STATE Vs. P.SANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.1674 of 2018 in C.C.No.8 of 2012 on the file of the Special Court for Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai and set aside the order dtd. 17/10/2018 directing the respondent to produce the Investigation Report shown as enclosure No.01 in the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Chennai-28 to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-3 Lr.Rc.25/2011/CB/ec111 dtd. 26/9/2011.

(2.) The brief facts relating the present petition is that the respondent/accused is facing trial in C.C.No.8 of 2012 for the offences under Ss. 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During the course of trial, the petitioner had filed a petition under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C in Crl.M.P.No.1674 of 2018, seeking for production of the document mentioned above. In that petition, the respondent/accused had stated that PW.1 in his evidence had stated that he had given sanction to prosecute the accused on the basis of the report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Chennai City-III Detachment, Chennai dtd. 26/9/2011 and that the sanction order contains statement which were not found in any of the documents supplied to the respondent/accused, more particularly, with regard to the genuineness of the complaint, the statement made by the respondent/accused etc., and thereby, a petition in Crl.M.P.No.497 of 2018 was filed by the respondent/accused, seeking to produce the report dtd. 26/9/2011 and by order dtd. 9/4/2018, the trial Court had allowed the said petition and the prosecution had produced the letter dtd. 26/9/2011. The letter had revealed that it was issued from the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Chennai-28 to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-3 and in that letter, a mention was made about five enclosures, the first of the enclosure cited in Ex.P1 was the Investigation Report. Further, in the evidence before the Trial Court, PW.1 had deposed that he had passed the order on the basis of the Investigation Report. Since Ex.P1 contains facts which were not found in any of the documents supplied to the respondent/accused and since the enclosure which were kept in Ex.P1 were not furnished to the respondent/accused, he had filed the petition seeking for summoning of those documents under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner/complainant had filed a counter before the Trial Court resisting the application stating that the petition is not maintainable and that the case is pending from the year 2012 and the petition has been filed at a belated stage to drag on the case and that the said report is a confidential official communication and thereby, the petitioner/complainant cannot be compelled to produce the documents.

(3.) The learned Trial Judge, after perusing the documents and hearing both sides passed an order allowing the petition, stating that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/complainant by issuing the copy of the aforesaid document to the respondent/accused and against which, the petitioner/complainant has filed this petition to set aside.