CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 10.08.2026 Pronounced on : 21.08.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 & CRL MP No. 5191 of 2026 A.Raja Sitting Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), S/o.Andimuthu, No.125, Dr.Ambedkar Street, Velur, Perambalur – 621 104. ..Petitioner(s) Vs. State by, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, Chennai. (RC MA1 2015 A 0037). ..Respondent(s) Prayer: The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to set aside the order dated 08.12.2025 passed in Crl.MP.No.10038 of 2025 in CC.No.23 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Trial of Criminal Cases related to Elected Member of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Singaravelar Maaligai, Chennai. For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandiyan, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Saravanan For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor (CBI) __________ Page1 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 ORDER This petition has been filed challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.10038 of 2025 in CC.No.23 of 2022 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of criminal cases related to Elected Member of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, dated 08.12.2025, thereby, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 207 Cr.P.C. r/w Rule 25 of Cr.P.C., seeking supply of un-relied documents by the prosecution, namely the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 22.08.2015 and the decision taken on the said representation by the respondent. 2.The petitioner is arrayed as the first accused in CC.No.23 of 2022 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of criminal cases related to Elected Member of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu and facing charges for the offences punishable under Section 109 of IPC r/w. 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 13(1)(e) r/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While pending trial, the petitioner filed an application under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. r/w. Rule 25 of Criminal Rules of Practice, seeking the copy of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 22.08.2015 and the decision taken on the said representation by the respondent. However, it was dismissed by the Trial Court and aggrieved by the same, the present petition. __________ Page2 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the documents which have not been relied upon by the prosecution, as such documents are necessary to enable him to effectively defend his case. It is further submitted that, while pending investigation in the FIR registered in RC-MA1-2015-A-0037, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent seeking closure of the said FIR, on the ground that he had already been subjected to investigation in respect of the allegations relating to the grant of UAS Licences and allocation of spectrum by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, during the period 2007–2008. In connection with the said allegations, the CBI, ACB, New Delhi, had registered an FIR on 21.10.2009 in RC-DAI-2009-A-0045. Pursuant to the registration of the said FIR, the Enforcement Directorate also registered an ECIR on 09.03.2010, bearing ECIR-31-DZ-2010. 4. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, vide order dated 16.12.2010 in C.A.No.10660 of 2010, directed all the three agencies, namely, the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax Department, to coordinate with one another in conducting their respective investigations and to share the information collected during such investigations. Pursuant to the said order, all three agencies conducted investigations and examined the financial records, documents and details relating to the movable and immovable __________ Page3 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 properties of the petitioner, as well as those of his relatives and friends, for the period from 2004 to 2010 and searches were also conducted at the residential premises of the petitioner and his family members during the year 2010. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer in the said 2G Spectrum case had also deposed that there was no allegation or finding of disproportionate assets against the accused/petitioner. In such circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the subsequent investigation in respect of the same subject matter, without considering the materials already collected and examined by the investigating agencies, is unwarranted. 5. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that, even during the course of the earlier investigation, there was no allegation that the accused/petitioner had amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Therefore, there could be no justification for conducting a further investigation into the same subject matter, particularly when the relevant financial records and assets of the petitioner had already been examined by the investigating agencies. In such circumstances, the very registration of the subsequent FIR was unwarranted, and the petitioner had therefore submitted a representation seeking closure of the FIR. However, the said representation dated 22.08.2015 was not considered by the respondent, and no order has been passed thereon till date. Hence, he submitted that the respondent ought to have considered the representation of the petitioner. __________ Page4 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 6. He further submitted that the respondent had neither relied upon the said document nor filed the same along with the charge sheet, and consequently, the document was not furnished to the petitioner as mandated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. r/w. Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. The decision on the representation dated 22.08.2015 is a vital document, as it has a direct bearing on the petitioner’s defence and would assist him in effectively defending the case. 7.However, without properly considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking the said document. It is submitted that the investigating agency is required, as a matter of fairness and transparency in the exercise of its investigative powers, to make a full disclosure of the relevant documents sought by the petitioner, particularly when such documents have a bearing on his defence. There is also no legal impediment for the Trial Court to direct the respondent to furnish the document sought by the petitioner, as the same would enable him to effectively defend the case. Therefore, he prayed that the order passed by the Trial Court be set aside and the respondent be directed to furnish the said document to the petitioner. __________ Page5 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 8. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nitya Dharmananda v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy, [(2018) 2 SCC 93], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an accused ordinarily cannot invoke Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., at the stage of framing of charges. However, where the Court is satisfied that material of sterling quality has been withheld by the Investigating Officer or the prosecution and has not been made part of the charge sheet, the Court is empowered to summon such material in order to ensure a fair trial. 9. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. INX Media Pvt. Ltd., [2021 SCC OnLine Del 4932], wherein it was held that documents can ordinarily be sought under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. only at the stage of defence and, therefore, the stage for seeking inspection of unrelied documents in the possession of the CBI and kept in the CBI had not arisen at that stage. However, it is well settled that an accused can establish his defence not only by leading independent defence evidence but also through effective cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. Further, a document which is relevant and possesses sterling quality can be considered by the Court even at the stage of framing of charges. The Court is not precluded from exercising its power to summon or consider such a document at the stage of charge, particularly where the __________ Page6 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 document is of sterling quality and has a crucial bearing on the question of framing of charges. 10. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manoj and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [(2023) 2 SCC 353], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, as a matter of rule, the prosecution should, in all criminal trials, furnish a list of statements to the accused. Such disclosure ensures transparency in the investigation and enables the accused to effectively prepare and present his defence. 11. He also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Gupta Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [(2025) 7 SCC 626]. The relevant paragraphs of the said Judgment are extracted hereunder; “36.Now, we come to the decision of this Court in Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In Re3. This Court, in para 11 of the said decision, held thus: (SCC p.602) “11. The Amici Curiae pointed out that at the commencement of trial, accused are only furnished with list of documents and statements which the prosecution relies on and are kept in the dark about other material, which the police or the prosecution may have in their possession, which may be exculpatory in nature, or absolve or help the accused. This Court is of the opinion that while furnishing the list of statements, documents and material objects under Sections 207/208 CrPC, the Magistrate should also ensure that a list of other materials, (such as statements, or objects/documents seized, but not relied on) __________ Page7 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 should be furnished to the accused. This is to ensure that in case the accused is of the view that such materials are necessary to be produced for a proper and just trial, she or he may seek appropriate orders, under CrPC for their production during the trial, in the interests of justice. It is directed accordingly; the Draft Rules have been accordingly modified. [Rule 4(i)] 37.Accordingly, Rule 4(i) of the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021 was formulated, which reads thus: “4. Supply of documents under Sections 173, 207 and 208 CrPC.— (i) Every accused shall be supplied with statements of witness recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and a list of documents, material objects and exhibits seized during investigation and relied upon by the investigating officer (IO) in accordance with Sections 207 and 208 CrPC.” Explanation: The list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits shall specify statements, documents, material objects and exhibits that are not relied upon by the investigating officer” (emphasis added) 38.Therefore, it is held that a copy of the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits that are not relied upon by the investigating officer must also be furnished to the accused. As held by this Court, the object is to ensure that the accused has knowledge of the documents, objects, etc. in the custody of the investigating officer which are not relied upon so that at the appropriate stage, the accused can apply by invoking the provisions of Section 91 of the CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) for providing copies of the documents which are not relied upon by the prosecution. This decision upholds the right of the accused to apply for the supply of copies of the documents which are not relied upon by the prosecution at an appropriate stage by making an application to the Court. 40.Therefore, what can be deduced from the above decisions is that the accused has the right to ask for the supply of documents not __________ Page8 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 relied upon by the prosecution by making an application to the Court. The question is at what stage the accused can demand copies of the documents. Whether an accused is entitled to seek copies of the documents not relied upon by the prosecution at the stage of framing of charge 41.At this stage, we may make a reference to the decision of this Court in Debendra Nath Padhi. This Court was considering the provision of discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC, which reads thus: “227. Discharge.— If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.” 42.The issue before this Court was what is the meaning of ‘the record of the case’ which is required to be considered for the purposes of framing of charge. Para 8 of the said decision reads thus: (Debendra Nath Padhi Case, SCC p.574) “8. What is the meaning of the expression “the record of the case” as used in Section 227 of the Code. Though the word “case” is not defined in the Code but Section 209 throws light on the interpretation to be placed on the said word. Section 209 which deals with the commitment of case to the Court of Session when offence is triable exclusively by it, inter alia, provides that when it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall commit “the case” to the Court of Session and send to that court “the record of the case” and the document and articles, if any, which are to be produced in evidence and notify the Public Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session. It is evident that the record of the case and documents submitted therewith as postulated in Section 227 relate to the case and the documents referred to in Section 209. That is the plain meaning of Section 227 read with Section __________ Page9 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 209 of the Code. No provision in the Code grants to the accused any right to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. That right is granted only at the stage of the trial.” 43.In para 25 of the said decision, this Court held thus: (Debendra Nath Padhi case, SCC pp. 579-80) “25. Any document or other thing envisaged under the aforesaid provision can be ordered to be produced on finding that the same is “necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code”. The first and foremost requirement of the section is about the document being necessary or desirable. The necessity or desirability would have to be seen with reference to the stage when a prayer is made for the production. If any document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the initial stage of framing of a charge would not arise since defence of the accused is not relevant at that stage. When the section refers to investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may move the court for summoning and production of a document as may be necessary at any of the stages mentioned in the section. Insofar as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section talks of the document being necessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning and production is made and the party who makes it, whether police or accused. If under Section 227, what is necessary and relevant is only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to show his innocence. Under Section 91 summons for production of document can be issued by court and under a written order an officer in charge of a police station can also direct production thereof. Section 91 does not confer any right on the accused to produce document in his possession to prove his defence. Section 91 presupposes that when the document is not produced process may be initiated to compel production thereof.” (emphasis added) __________ Page10 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 44.Thus, this Court observed that the entitlement of the accused to seek an order under Section 91 of the CrPC for the production of the documents that are not relied upon would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. These observations are in the context of what constitutes ‘the record of the case’ for the purposes of Section 227 CrPC. Even this judgment recognizes the right of the accused to seek documents at the time of leading defence evidence by invoking Section 91 CrPC. We may note here that what is observed by this Court is that there is no absolute prohibition on an accused making an application under Section 91 of CrPC, before the stage of entering upon defence. It is held that ordinarily, the entitlement of the accused to apply under Section 91 will not arise till the stage of defence” 12. From the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the right of an accused to seek an order under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for production of documents not relied upon by the prosecution would ordinarily arise only at the stage of entering upon the defence. However, there is no absolute bar against an accused invoking Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. even before the commencement of the defence stage. Thus, the ordinary rule is that an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. seeking production of unrelied documents will not arise till the stage of defence arrives. 13. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. __________ Page11 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 14. It is seen that, while pending investigation in FIR registered in RC- MA1-2015-A-0037, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.08.2015 to the respondent seeking closure of the said FIR on the ground that the subject matter had already been investigated by three investigating agencies and that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had also issued directions to the said agencies to coordinate with one another and share the information collected during the course of investigation. Accordingly, all the three investigating agencies had examined the financial records and other relevant materials and had not found any material to establish that the petitioner had amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the relevant check period. Despite the earlier investigation in connection with the 2G Spectrum case, wherein, the respondent subsequently registered another FIR in the year 2015 alleging that the petitioner had amassed disproportionate assets during the same check period and thereafter proceeded to file a final report. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner submitted the representation dated 22.08.2015 seeking closure of the subsequent FIR. 15. Though the respondent did not furnish any reply to the representation dated 22.08.2015 submitted by the petitioner, the respondent proceeded with the investigation and a final report was filed in the said FIR and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in C.C.No.23 of 2022. Thus, without taking any specific decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking __________ Page12 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 closure of the FIR, the respondent proceeded with the investigation and filed the charge sheet in RC-MA1-2015-A-0037. 16. Admittedly, the document sought by the petitioner is the representation dated 22.08.2015 submitted by the petitioner himself, which is admittedly available with the petitioner. It is further evident that the said representation was not considered by the respondent before filing the final report. Therefore, the said document cannot be regarded as a document of sterling quality within the meaning of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the document is already within the knowledge and possession of the petitioner and hence it would not materially assist the petitioner in establishing his defence. Hence, there is no necessity to direct the respondent to furnish the said document under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. 17. Further, the said representation was submitted by the petitioner specifically contending that as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the three investigating agencies had already conducted investigations into the very same allegations and that the matter had culminated in a full-fledged trial. Upon completion of the trial, the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges. The Investigating Officer also during the course of the earlier proceedings, had deposed that there was no case of disproportionate assets against the petitioner. __________ Page13 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 18. However, on perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in C.A.No.10660 of 2010 dated 16.12.2010, it is seen that there is absolutely no reference to any case relating to disproportionate assets against the petitioner. The directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in C.A.No.10660 of 2010 dated 16.12.2010 read as follows:- “(i) The CBI shall conduct thorough investigation into various issues highlighted in the report of the Central Vigilance Commission, which was forwarded to the Director, CBI vide letter dated 12.10.2009 and 32 the report of the CAG, who have prima facie found serious irregularities in the grant of licences to 122 applicants, majority of whom are said to be ineligible, the blatant violation of the terms and conditions of licences and huge loss to the public exchequer running into several thousand crores. The CBI should also probe how licences were granted to large number of ineligible applicants and who was responsible for the same and why the TRAI and the DoT did not take action against those licensees who sold their stakes/equities for many thousand crores and also against those who failed to fulfil rollout obligations and comply with other conditions of licence. (ii) The CBI shall conduct the investigation without being influenced by any functionary, agency or instrumentality of the State and irrespective of the position, rank or status of the person to be investigated/probed. (iii) The CBI shall, if it has already not registered first information report in the context of the alleged irregularities committed in the grant of licences from 2001 to 2006-2007, now register a case and conduct thorough investigation with particular emphasis on the __________ Page14 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 loss caused to the public exchequer and corresponding gain to the licensees/service providers and also on the issue of allowing use of dual/alternate 33 technology by some service providers even before the decision was made public vide press release dated 19.10.2007. (iv) The CBI shall also make investigation into the allegation of grant of huge loans by the public sector and other banks to some of the companies which have succeeded in obtaining licences in 2008 and find out whether the officers of the DoT were signatories to the loan agreement executed by the private companies and if so, why and with whose permission they did so. (v) The Directorate of Enforcement/concerned agencies of the Income Tax Department shall continue their investigation without any hindrance or interference by any one. (vi) Both the agencies, i.e., the CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement shall share information with each other and ensure that the investigation is not hampered in any manner whatsoever. (vii) The Director General, Income Tax (Investigation) shall, after completion of analysis of the transcripts of the recording made pursuant to the approval accorded by the Home Secretary, Government of India, hand over the same to CBI to facilitate further investigation into the FIR already registered or which may be registered hereinafter.” 19. Therefore, even assuming that statements were obtained from the accused during the investigation in the 2G Spectrum case, the scope and subject matter of the said investigation were entirely different. The investigation, trial __________ Page15 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 and other proceedings in the said case were confined to the alleged criminal irregularities and violations committed in connection with the allotment of 2G Spectrum. There is nothing on record to indicate that the investigating agency, in the said proceedings, had undertaken any specific investigation into the alleged disproportionate assets of the accused. 20. On the other hand, the scope of the present FIR, the investigation conducted pursuant thereto and the evidence collected therein reveals the commission of offences concerning disproportionate assets by the accused/petitioner and the other accused. The allegations, ingredients and evidence required to establish the said offences are distinct from those involved in the earlier 2G Spectrum case. Therefore, the fact that the accused was acquitted or exonerated in the earlier case, which concerned a different set of allegations and offences, would not, by itself, operate as an exoneration in respect of the subsequent case relating to disproportionate assets. 21. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.08.2015 seeking closure of the FIR. However, the respondent did not consider the said representation and proceeded to file the final report. While being so at the stage of framing of charges, the petitioner sought production of the very same representation dated 22.08.2015, along with the decision taken by the respondent thereon. It is relevant to note that, except the first accused, all the __________ Page16 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 other accused had filed discharge petitions, which came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the quash petitions filed by A2 and A3 were also dismissed by this Court. At that juncture, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. read with Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, seeking production of the representation dated 22.08.2015 and the decision taken by the respondent thereon. 22. As stated supra, the representation dated 22.08.2015 submitted by the petitioner is admittedly available with the petitioner and has also been produced before this Court. Therefore, there is no question of the petitioner being deprived of access to the said document. Insofar as the decision on the said representation is concerned, though the respondent did not pass any specific order rejecting the representation, the investigation was completed and the final report was filed. The filing of the final report, followed by the taking of cognizance by the Trial Court in C.C.No.23 of 2022, indicates the course of action ultimately taken by the respondent in respect of the allegations forming the subject matter of the FIR. 23. Therefore, the representation dated 22.08.2015 sought by the petitioner has no direct nexus with the charge sheet or the specific charges framed against him. Though an accused is entitled to seek disclosure of relevant documents which have not been relied upon by the prosecution, such __________ Page17 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 entitlement cannot extend to documents which have no bearing on the allegations or the evidence forming the basis of the prosecution case. Therefore, non-furnishing of a separate copy of the said representation or the decision taken by the respondent would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner in defending the charges against him. 24.It is relevant to extract Section 207 Cr,P.C: “207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents. - In any case where the proceedings has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of post, a copy of each of the following:- (i) the police report; (ii) the first information report recorded under section 154; (iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding there from any part in regard to which a request for exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub-section (6) of section 173; (iv) the confessions and statements, if any recorded under Section 164; (v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub-section (5) of section 173: provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused: __________ Page18 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause(v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court.” 25.Thus, it is clear that the document sought by the petitioner does not fall within any of the categories contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. The said document was not seized or recovered from the petitioner at any point of time. Further, the said representation is admittedly available with the petitioner and has also been produced before this Court. Therefore, the question of furnishing the said document to the petitioner under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. does not arise, particularly when the document is already within his knowledge and possession. 26. It is true that, where the Investigating Officer has withheld material of sterling quality, the Court is not precluded from summoning the material, even if it does not form part of the charge sheet. Where the Court finds that material of sterling quality has been withheld by the Investigating Officer, the Trial Court, even at the stage of compliance with Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. or at the stage of framing of charges, is empowered to summon such material, particularly when it has a crucial bearing on the question of framing of charges. However, in the present case, as stated supra, the document sought by the petitioner is not a document of sterling quality and does not have any crucial __________ Page19 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 bearing on the issue of framing of charges. Further, the said document was neither relied upon by the prosecution nor seized or recovered by the respondent during the course of investigation. Admittedly, the document is a representation submitted by the petitioner himself and is already in his possession. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned Trial Court has rightly considered the nature and relevance of the document sought by the petitioner and dismissed the petition filed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. read with Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. 27. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court of Special Judge for Trial of Criminal Cases related to Elected Member of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Singaravelar Maaligai, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.10038 of 2025 in C.C.No.23 of 2022, dated 08.12.2025. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 21.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG __________ Page20 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 To 1.The Special Judge for Trial of Criminal Cases related to Elected Member of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Singaravelar Maaligai, Chennai. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, Chennai. (RC MA1 2015 A 0037). 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. __________ Page21 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. TSG CRL OP No. 7122 of 2026 & CRL MP No. 5191 of 2026 21.08.2026 __________ Page22 of 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis