Revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reopen evidence after inordinate delay at the final argument stage.

The petitioner (accused) is facing trial in C.C. No. 71/2016 before the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tindivanam, a case pending since 2016.

The trial had reached the stage of arguments, and the complainant had already filed written arguments.

At this stage, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. Nos. 85 & 86 of 2026 seeking to reopen defense evidence to examine one Venkatesan as a witness.

The petitioner contended that the cheque in question was given as security for a loan taken by one Arumugam and that Venkatesan (the complainant in another case against Arumugam) could demonstrate this defense through forensic evidence established in that separate proceeding.

The Trial Court dismissed the applications, leading to the present revisions filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

1. Whether the Trial Court’s order dismissing the applications to reopen evidence and examine a witness at the argument stage was perverse or legally infirm.

2. What is the scope and contour of the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction in challenging interlocutory-style orders of inferior courts.

The Court primarily examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. (now under corresponding provisions of BNSS), which empowers the Court to ensure the legality and regularity of proceedings to correct patent defects or errors of jurisdiction.

It relied on the principles established in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and others (2012) 9 SCC 460, which mandates that revisional jurisdiction should not be exercised in a routine manner and is reserved for cases of gross error, non-compliance with law, or arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion.

The Court observed that the underlying case is a decade old, and the petitioner’s applications were filed only after the complainant had submitted written arguments.

The Court noted that the petitioner was already permitted via a prior High Court order (Crl.RC.No.1532 of 2025) to mark certified copies and electronic evidence from the related case (C.C.No.85 of 2017).

Justice Kumarappan reasoned that if the petitioner genuinely required the testimony of Venkatesan, the application should have been moved much earlier, specifically after the forensic report was available in June 2024, rather than waiting for the argument stage.

The Court concluded that the proposed witness and the third party (Arumugam) were not parties to the current proceedings, and the Trial Court’s refusal to reopen the case was a "plausible and reasonable finding" aimed at preventing further delay.

The Court held that revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to interfere with a Trial Court's discretionary order when such order is based on reasonable grounds, especially in a case pending for ten years where the applications appeared intended to delay the conclusion of the trial.

All connected petitions were closed.