Synopsis

The accused in a cheque bounce case (C.C. No. 71 of 2016) filed applications before the trial court seeking to reopen the defence evidence and to examine an additional witness – a person from an unrelated criminal case. The accused claimed that the cheque was given as security for a loan taken by a third party (Arumugam) and that the proposed witness (Venkatesan) was the complainant in another case against Arumugam, where a forensic video report was available. The trial court rejected the applications, noting that the case was pending since 2016 and was at the stage of arguments, and that the proposed witness had no nexus to the present case. The High Court dismissed the criminal revisions, holding that the trial court’s order was neither perverse nor arbitrary, and that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. (now Section 438 of B.N.S.S. 2023) should not be exercised routinely.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Coram: C. Kumarappan, J.
Date: March 30, 2026
Citation: 2026:MHC:1297
Core Law: Criminal Procedure, Negotiable Instruments Act (implied), Revisional Jurisdiction (Section 397 Cr.P.C. / Section 438 B.N.S.S. 2023)

2. Legal Framework

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 397 – revisional jurisdiction of the High Court to examine records of inferior courts for legality and regularity.

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: Section 438 r/w 442 (corresponding to Section 397 Cr.P.C.).

• Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (by

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.