THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE versus TR N SEENIVASAGAN

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 529 · Decided: 01-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
529
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 529
529
THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
v.
TR N SEENIVASAGAN
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 231-232 of 2021)
MARCH 01, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s.311 – Ambit of – FIR under
PC Act registered in 2010 against respondent-Chief Engineer in
the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Company Limited
(TANGEDCO) and other co-accused (since deceased) – Sanction
to prosecute accorded – Final report filed in July 2011 – Prosecution
evidence closed in October 2017 – Applications filed u/s.311 in
2019 for recalling PW-1(Chairman of TANGEDCO) and PW-11
(Deputy Superintendent of Police) – Dismissed – On appeal, held:
Having due regard to the nature and ambit of s.311, the applications
filed by the prosecution ought to have been allowed – True test is
whether it appears to the Court that the evidence of such person
sought to be recalled is essential to the just decision of the case –
Prosecution sought to produce a copy of the relevant document
pertaining to the approval granted by the Board of TANGEDCO –
To have it marked as an exhibit, PWs 1 and 11 were sought to be
recalled – Document was crucial for the decision of the case since
the respondent had taken a defense that this document had been
signed by the Chairman of TANGEDCO without the Board’s approval
– Delay in filing the applications explained by prosecution –
Impugned judgment set aside – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
– ss.7, 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d).
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Having due regard to the nature and ambit of
Section 311 of the CrPC, it was appropriate and proper that the
applications filed by the prosecution ought to have been allowed.
Section 311 provides that any Court may, at any stage of any
inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the CrPC, summon any
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though
not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person
already examined and the Court shall summon and examine or
recall and re-examine any such person “if his evidence appears
to it to be essential to the just decision of the case”. The true
test, therefore, is whether it appears to the Court that the
evidence of such person who is sought to be recalled is essential
to the just decision of the case. In the present case, the
prosecution has sought to produce a copy of the relevant
document pertaining to the approval granted by the Board of
TANGEDCO on the record and to have it marked as an exhibit
in the evidence, for which purpose PWs 1 and 11 were sought to
be recalled. In its applications, the prosecution noted that these
witnesses were required to mark the relevant document, which
was crucial for the decision of the case since the respondent had
taken a defense that this document had been signed by the
Chairman of TANGEDCO without the Board’s approval. In
explaining the delay in filing the applications, the prosecution
noted that it was due to the transfer of Special Public Prosecutor
who was conducting the case. The rejection of the applications
for recall under Section 311 was not in order. The impugned
judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The
applications filed by the prosecution for recall of PWs 1 and 11
shall accordingly stand allowed. [Paras 13, 15 and 16][534-B-D;
536-D-E; 537-E-F]
Manju Devi v State of Rajasthan (2019) 6 SCC 203 :
[2019] 6 SCR 68 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2019] 6 SCR 68
relied on
para 14
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 231-232 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.06.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Crl.O.P. Nos. 7694 of 2019 and 7816 of
2019.
M. Yogesh Kanna, Raja Rajeshwaran S., Aditya Chadha,
Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu, Advs. for the Appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
531
Senthil Jagadeesan, Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of a judgment and order of a learned
Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 24 June
2019.
3. The appellant is the State represented by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai City–
IV. On 13 July 2010, FIR No 14 of 2010 was registered against the
respondent (Accused No 1) and another accused (who has since passed
away) under the Prevention of Corrupti

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.