A.Shahul Hameed vs The State of Tamilnadu
- Court
- Madras High Court
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 07.08.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.11.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
A.Shahul Hameed ... Petitioner
Vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Thoothukudi District.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai.
3.The Director of Prosecution,
Chennai.
4.The Registrar General,
Madras High Court,
Chennai. ... Respondents
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
[R.2 to R.4 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 06.08.2026]
PRAYER :- Petition filed u/s.528 BNSS seeking a direction to the Principal
District Judge, Thoothukudi, to conduct speedy trial in Spl.C.No.13 of
2025 and to conclude the same within a stipulated time limit.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Shaji Chellan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Robinson
Additional Public Prosecutor for R.1, R.3
Mr.S.Sivasubramanian
Government Advocate (Civil Side) for R.2
Mr.D.Venkatesh for R.4
*
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Spl.C.No.13 of 2025 on the file
of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi. He is facing
trial for the offences under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and Section 167 IPC. He has filed this petition seeking
expeditious disposal of the proceedings pending before the trial Court.
2/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
2.Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by placing reliance
upon Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, submitted that the
provision mandates day-to-day trial and conclusion of the entire trial
within a period of two years. However, in this case, even though the
charges were framed in the year 2023, for the past three years, only two
witnesses have been examined. He submitted that the petitioner is only
seeking an early disposal of the proceedings and sought for a direction
to conclude the trial within a stipulated time.
3.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the case was
originally dealt with by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thoothukudi, in Spl.CC.No.2 of 2023. Pursuant to the administrative
proceedings of this Court dated 29.05.2025, the case was transferred
from the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the Principal District and
Sessions Court. Thereafter, the case was renumbered as Spl.C.No.13 of
2025. He further submitted that nearly 80 cases registered for the
offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 are pending
3/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi.
4.The object of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is to
eradicate corruption in public administration by ensuring effective
investigation, speedy trial and deterrent punishment of corruption
offences, thereby maintaining integrity in public services and preserving
public confidence in governance. This object is reinforced by Section 4(4),
which mandates that Special Judges shall, as far as practicable, hold trials
on a day-to-day basis and endeavour to conclude the trial within two
years, with reasons to be recorded for any extension. The said provision
is extracted hereunder:-
“4.Cases triable by special Judges. -
... ... ... (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the trial of an offence shall be held, as
far as practicable, on day-to-day basis and an endeavour shall be
made to ensure that the said trial is concluded within a period of
two years:
Provided that where the trial is not concluded within the said
period, the special Judge shall record the reasons for not having
4/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
done so: Provided further that the said period may be extended
by such further period, for reasons to be recorded in writing but not
exceeding six months at a time; so, however, that the said period
together with such extended period shall not exceed ordinarily four
years in aggregate.”
5.In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shahid Balwa v.
Union of India [ (2014) 2 SCC 687 ] observed that this provision reflects the
necessity for early disposal of cases relating to bribery and corruption
and also the imperative need to eradicate the evils of bribery and
corruption.
6.In view of the above provision and the submissions made by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor regarding the existing pendency
before the trial Court, this Court called for a report from the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, regarding the implementation
of the requirement under Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, in his report,
stated that 70 cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act were
5/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
pending before the Court and that the petitioner's case had been
received only recently pursuant to the administrative proceedings of this
Court dated 29.05.2025. Considering the existing pendency, he sought
six months' time to conclude the trial.
7.At this juncture, learned Counsel for the petitioner drew an
analogy to the orders passed by the First Bench of this Court in XXX v.
Director General of Police [ W.P.No.20751 of 2026, dated 29.07.2026 ],
wherein, taking note of the legislative object underlying the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, comprehensive directions were
issued to the State Government as well as the High Court administration
to ensure establishment of adequate infrastructure and effective
implementation of the statutory mandate under Section 35 of the POCSO
Act, relating to time-bound disposal of cases under the Act. Placing
reliance upon the said decision, learned Counsel submitted that
appropriate directions may also be issued for effective implementation
of the mandate contained in Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption
6/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
Act, 1988.
8.This Court finds force in the analogy drawn by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner. While the petitioner has sought only
expeditious disposal of his case, the facts brought before this Court
disclose a larger issue touching upon the implementation of the
statutory mandate contained in Section 4(4) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
9.It is brought to the notice of this Court that exclusive Special
Courts for trial of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act have
been constituted only in eight districts in the State. In the remaining
districts, the cases are being dealt with by the jurisdictional Principal
District and Sessions Judges / Sessions Judges. It is also brought to the
notice of this Court that, pursuant to the administrative proceedings of
this Court dated 29.05.2025, the cases which were earlier pending before
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrates came to be transferred to the
7/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
Courts of the Principal District and Sessions Judges. It appears that
such transfer was necessitated on account of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 coming into force. Under Section 10 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the cadre of Assistant Sessions Judge was
previously available. However, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, has removed this cadre. Consequently, administrative
arrangements came to be made by transferring the cases to the Courts
of the Principal District and Sessions Judges.
10.However, a reading of Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act shows that a Special Judge may be appointed from amongst persons
who are or have been Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judges.
While so, this Court was of the prima facie view that it required
consideration as to whether entrustment of all Prevention of Corruption
Act cases to the Principal District and Sessions Judges alone, despite the
availability of Additional District and Sessions Judges, would effectively
achieve the legislative mandate contained in Section 4(4) of the Act.
8/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
11.This Court was also of the view that the basis on which exclusive
Special Courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act had been
constituted only in certain districts and not in others, and the criteria
adopted for such constitution, required examination. Unless adequate
institutional measures are put in place, the legislative mandate for
expeditious disposal of cases under the Act may not be effectively
achieved.
12.Since these issues have a direct bearing on the implementation
of the statutory mandate contained in Section 4(4) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act throughout the State, this Court suo motu impleaded the
Secretary to Government, Home Department; the Director of
Prosecution, Chennai; and the Registrar General of this Court as
respondents and directed them to file separate reports addressing the
9/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
district-wise pendency of cases, the number of exclusive Special Courts,
the criteria adopted for their constitution, the possibility of constituting
additional Special Courts or designating Additional District and Sessions
Judges as Special Judges, and the steps taken or proposed to ensure
effective implementation of Section 4(4) of the Act.
13.Pursuant to the above directions, the Registrar General of this
Court has submitted a report stating that, as on 30.06.2026, a total of
2,423 cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act are pending
throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. Apart from this, 61 cases are
pending in the Union Territory of Puducherry, taking the overall
pendency to 2,484 cases. The Registrar General has further stated that
eight Special Courts were functioning in the State previously in the cadre
of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to try the cases under the Prevention of
Corruption Act. Subsequently, the Government, by G.O.Ms.No.87, Home
Department, dated 18.02.2026, has upgraded all the eight Special Courts
to the cadre of District Judge. In the remaining 30 districts, the cases
10/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
under the Prevention of Corruption Act are being tried by the respective
Principal District and Sessions Judges / Sessions Judges.
14.The Registrar General has also brought to the notice of this
Court that a proposal is pending before the High Court, in the
administrative side, for designating Additional Sessions Courts as Special
Courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act, instead of entrusting
such cases to the Principal Sessions Courts.
15.The Director of Prosecution, in his report, has stated that in
eight districts, exclusive Special Courts are functioning under the
Prevention of Corruption Act. He has further clarified that the posts of
Additional Public Prosecutors / Deputy Legal Advisors in the Directorate
of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption are deputation posts and that such
officers come under the administrative control of the Director of
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. He has also referred to the upgradation of
the eight Special Courts pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.87, Home Department,
11/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
dated 18.02.2026.
16.The reports now furnished disclose that the State has already
recognised the need for strengthening the judicial establishment dealing
with cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as evident from the
upgradation of the eight existing Special Courts to the cadre of District
Judge. However, the position in the remaining 30 districts continues to
be different, inasmuch as the cases registered under the Prevention of
Corruption Act in these districts are being dealt with by the Principal
District and Sessions Judges / Sessions Judges along with their regular
judicial work.
17.The pendency of 2,423 cases throughout the State, as on
30.06.2026, cannot be viewed as an ordinary workload to be dealt with as
an additional responsibility by the Principal District and Sessions Judges.
The trials under the Prevention of Corruption Act are governed by a
12/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
specific statutory mandate requiring day-to-day hearing, as far as
practicable, and an endeavour to conclude the trial within the prescribed
period. The very purpose of such a mandate would be defeated if the
Courts entrusted with these cases are unable to devote the requisite
time and attention to them on account of their other judicial and
administrative responsibilities.
18.Corruption cases involve allegations affecting public
administration and the integrity of public services. Prolonged pendency
of such cases neither serves the public interest nor does it advance the
interests of the accused. While the prosecution is entitled to a fair
opportunity to establish its case, the accused is equally entitled to have
the proceedings concluded within a reasonable time. The legislative
mandate under Section 4(4) has to be understood in this background.
19.This Court is conscious of the fact that the Principal District and
13/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
Sessions Judges are entrusted with substantial judicial and
administrative responsibilities in their respective districts. In addition to
the regular criminal and civil work, they are also required to attend to
administrative matters concerning the subordinate judiciary. Entrusting
the entire workload of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act to
them, without making any corresponding arrangement for distribution
of such cases, would place an avoidable burden on the said Courts.
20.More importantly, Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
itself provides for appointment of Special Judges from amongst persons
who are or have been Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judges. The
legislature has not confined the appointment of Special Judges only to
Principal District and Sessions Judges. The availability of Additional
District and Sessions Judges in the judicial establishment is a relevant
factor which cannot be overlooked while making arrangements for the
trial of cases under the Act.
14/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
21.The administrative proposal already pending before this Court
for designating Additional Sessions Courts as Special Courts under the
Prevention of Corruption Act is, in this regard, a welcome step. Such an
arrangement would enable the workload to be distributed and would
ensure that the Principal District and Sessions Judges alone are not
burdened with the responsibility of conducting all PC Act trials in districts
where exclusive Special Courts have not been constituted. The proposal
deserves to be considered expeditiously, keeping in view the statutory
mandate and the existing pendency.
22.At the same time, the constitution of exclusive Special Courts in
only eight districts requires a uniform and objective assessment. The
pendency of cases is an important factor, but it need not be the only
consideration. The age of the pending cases, the number of cases at the
stage of trial, the rate of institution of new cases and the judicial strength
available in each district are also relevant factors in deciding whether a
separate Special Court is required.
15/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
23.The upgradation of the eight existing Special Courts to the cadre
of District Judge pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.87, Home Department, dated
18.02.2026, is a step in the right direction. However, such upgradation
alone cannot address the problem of pendency throughout the State.
The State Government and the High Court administration must work in
coordination to ensure that the judicial establishment, supporting staff
and prosecuting personnel are adequate to meet the requirements of
these Courts.
24.The clarification furnished by the Director of Prosecution
regarding the deputation of Additional Public Prosecutors / Deputy Legal
Advisors to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption also
assumes significance. The constitution or designation of additional
Special Courts must be accompanied by adequate arrangements for
prosecution. A Special Court cannot effectively discharge its statutory
responsibility if the requisite prosecuting officers and supporting
16/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
personnel are not made available.
25.This Court is of the view that the statutory mandate under
Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be achieved
merely by issuing directions to the trial Courts to dispose of cases within
two years. The judicial establishment must also be organised in such a
manner that the Courts entrusted with the trial of these cases have
sufficient time and resources to comply with the mandate. The
responsibility to ensure this does not rest with the judiciary alone. The
State Government also has a corresponding responsibility to provide the
necessary infrastructure, staff and prosecuting personnel.
26.Accordingly, the following directions are issued:
(i) The Registrar General shall follow up on the proposal already
pending before the Hon'ble Committee concerned for designating
Additional Sessions Courts, in addition to the Sessions Court, as Special
17/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
Courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act, so as to enable the
distribution of the workload among the Principal District and Sessions
Judges and the Additional District and Sessions Judges, having regard to
the pendency and workload of cases in the respective districts.
(ii) In respect of the districts where exclusive Special Courts under
the Prevention of Corruption Act are not functioning, the Government, in
consultation with the High Court, shall examine the necessity of
establishing such exclusive Special Courts, taking into account the
district-wise pendency and workload of cases, and take appropriate steps
wherever warranted.
(iii) The State Government shall extend all necessary cooperation to
the High Court administration in providing the required infrastructure,
supporting staff and other facilities for the effective functioning of the
existing and any additionally designated Special Courts.
18/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
(iv) The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, in coordination
with the Director of Prosecution, shall ensure that adequate prosecuting
personnel are made available to the existing Special Courts and any
additional Special Courts that may be designated, so that the trials are
not delayed for want of prosecuting officers.
(v) The Principal District and Sessions Judges / Sessions Judges
dealing with cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 shall
give due priority to such cases and make every endeavour to conduct the
trials on a day-to-day basis, as far as practicable, and conclude them
within the period contemplated under Section 4(4) of the Act. Whenever
the statutory period is exceeded, the reasons shall be recorded in
accordance with the said provision.
27.Coming to the individual case of the petitioner, this Court is of
the view that, though the case has been transferred to the Principal
District and Sessions Court only recently, the fact remains that the
19/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
charges were framed in the year 2023 and only two witnesses have been
examined so far. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of
administrative arrangements or the workload of the trial Court. The
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, shall make
every endeavour to conclude the trial in Spl.C.No.13 of 2025 within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
without granting unnecessary adjournments, subject to the cooperation
of the parties.
With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed
of.
10.11.2026
gk
Note to Registry:-
Mark a copy of this order to all the Principal District and Sessions
Judge / District and Sessions Judge and also to the Presiding Officers of
Special Courts dealing with cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
throughout the State.
20/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Thoothukudi District.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai.
3.The Director of Prosecution,
Chennai.
4.The Registrar General,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
5.The Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Chennai.
6.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Thoothukudi.
21/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
Crl.OP(MD)No.11066 of 2026
10.11.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:10:08 am )