Safiya Malik

The Madras High Court, in a recent order, addressed a dispute regarding missing documents in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner, accused in a corruption case, sought the return of documents seized during an investigation, particularly an original sale deed, which was found missing from court records. The court, acknowledging the anomaly, directed that the certified copy of the missing document be treated as a primary document for all further transactions.

The petitioner had filed a criminal revision petition against the order dated November 21, 2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No.706/2024 in C.C.No.30/2011 by the Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai. The case stemmed from an FIR registered in 2008 following a complaint by one S. Murugan, who alleged that the petitioner, a government official, demanded a bribe of Rs.3,000 in exchange for providing an electricity connection to a newly constructed building at Thandeeswaram, Velachery. Based on this complaint, a trap was laid, and the petitioner was apprehended.

During the investigation, authorities conducted a search at the petitioner’s residence on June 23, 2009, seizing seventeen documents, including an original sale deed registered as Document No.105 of 2006, dated January 27, 2006. The inventory of the seized materials was prepared, and the search slip was issued at that time. However, discrepancies later arose regarding the custody of these documents.

The petitioner had previously approached the trial court through Crl.M.P.No.272/2022, seeking the return of the original sale deed. The trial court, in its order dated December 13, 2022, dismissed the petition, noting that the document was not available in the court’s records. Given this development, the petitioner subsequently filed Crl.M.P.No.706/2024, requesting a detailed list of the documents seized and clarification on which of them were relied upon by the prosecution. The Special Court dismissed this petition as well, prompting the petitioner to seek relief through the present criminal revision case before the High Court.

The petitioner argued that the original sale deed was a crucial property document and was unlawfully withheld, creating obstacles for him. It was contended that while the search slip acknowledged the seizure of the document, the investigating agency failed to ensure its safe transfer to the court. Furthermore, it was asserted that the investigating officer’s statement confirmed the seizure, adding credibility to the petitioner’s claims.

The High Court examined the submissions and the procedural history surrounding the seized documents. It was noted that PW12, the investigating officer, testified that a search was conducted at the petitioner’s residence on June 23, 2009, and that seventeen documents, including the original sale deed, were seized for investigative purposes. He further confirmed that a search list and inventory were duly prepared at the time.

The High Court directed the Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act to conduct an inquiry into the status of the missing documents. In its report, the Special Court confirmed that the disputed documents were not found in the case records. The report also detailed the movement of the case: originally taken up by the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, it was later transferred to the IV Additional Special Judge, and subsequently to the Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. During this transition, it was noted that the prosecution had not included the seized documents in the list of relied-upon evidence, and they were not sent to the Special Court.

The investigating officer admitted in his statement that, while the search slip was submitted to the court, there was no tangible proof that the actual documents had been handed over. This raised an anomaly concerning whether the documents were retained by the prosecution agency or lost during the case transfer process. The court also noted that multiple administrative transfers of case records between different judicial forums could have contributed to this loss.

The High Court recorded the following observation: “It is evident that the original sale deed in Document No.105 of 2006 was seized by the investigating agency. However, discrepancies remain regarding whether the document was subsequently submitted to the court or retained by the prosecution.” Given this inconsistency and the petitioner’s limited prayer for relief, the court refrained from delving further into the issue of responsibility for the missing document.

The High Court further observed that the procedural failure in securing and accounting for seized documents reflects a larger concern in the criminal justice process. The court underscored that administrative lapses in handling crucial evidence could impact legal proceedings and stated the need for stricter documentation protocols when transferring seized items.

Taking into account the facts and the procedural shortcomings, the High Court granted the petitioner’s request. It directed that the certified copy of the missing sale deed, Document No.105 of 2006, dated January 27, 2006, be considered a primary document for all legal purposes and further transactions.

The criminal revision case was accordingly disposed of, with the direction that the order be communicated to all relevant authorities. Additionally, the court recommended that the registrar of the Special Court undertake a review of document-handling procedures to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

Case Title: Tr. S. Venkatesan v. The State Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Cell, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai

Case Number: Crl.R.C.No.2358 of 2024

Bench: Justice M. Nirmal Kumar

[Read/Download order]