ORDER : M. Venugopal, J. The Revision Petitioner/Accused has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Case before this Court, being aggrieved against the order dated 05.11.2015, in Cr.M.P. No. 504 of 2015 in Special Case No. 29 of 2011, passed by the Learned Special Judge, Special Court for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai. 2. The Learned Special Judge, Special Court for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai, while passing the impugned order in Crl.M.P. No. 504 of 2015 in Special Case No. 29 of 2011 (filed by the Revision Petitioner/accused), at Para No. 7, had observed and held as follows:- "7. Heard both side arguments. The case is at the stage of examination of defence witnesses. The Special Public Prosecutor specifically contended that this petition is not maintainable since the allegation mentioned in the petition is necessarily to be proved by documentary evidence. It is also stated that the documents referred in the petition were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 at the time of cross examination of PW.2. It is also not necessary to enquire the VAO Seit Babu for the purpose of proving the documents as public documents. It is contended by the Special Public Prosecutor that Departmental enquiry was initiated against the Seit Babu also. This Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer sought for by the Petitioner/accused to examine the Seit Babu could not be allowed. Since the Court can very well appreciate the evidence recorded only after the conclusion of both prosecution and defence side evidence. Hence as far as A. Seit Babu is concerned it is already decided by this Court his examination is not necessary. In this petition also the examination of Seit Babu was defence witness is not necessary. The other two witnesses i.e., P.K. Palanichami and M. Malaichami are concerned, the petitioner/accused has to be provide one chance to examine those two witnesses cited as defence witness. Finally this petition is partly allowed." 3. Challenging the order dated 05.11.2015, in Crl.M.P. No. 504 of 2015 in Special Case No. 29 of 2011, passed by the Trial Court in allowing the petition filed by the Revision Petitioner/accused in part and not permitting him to examine one 'A. Seit Babu'. 4. Finally this petition is partly allowed." 3. Challenging the order dated 05.11.2015, in Crl.M.P. No. 504 of 2015 in Special Case No. 29 of 2011, passed by the Trial Court in allowing the petition filed by the Revision Petitioner/accused in part and not permitting him to examine one 'A. Seit Babu'. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Accused contends that the Revision Petitioner had filed Crl.M.P. No. 504 of 2015, before the Trial Court under Section 22 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 r/w. Section 243 of Cr.P.C and that the impugned order turning down the request of the Revision Petitioner in not permitting him to examine the said 'A. Seit Babu' is contrary to the well laid down Principles of Law. 5. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Accused submits that before the Trial Court in Special Case No. 29 of 2011, the Respondent/complainant/Prosecution although had cited 'A. Seit Babu' (Village Administrative Officer) as one of the witnesses mentioned in the 'List of Witnesses', he was not examined and in fact, his examination was dispensed with by the prosecution and in fact, PW2/defacto complainant had alleged in the First Information Report as well as in deposition, before the Court that the said Village Administrative Officer 'A. Sait Babu' had demanded bribe etc., and as such, he was to be necessarily summoned and examined as defence witness. 6. It is represented on behalf the Revision Petitioner/Accused that the Revision Petitioner/Accused in Crl.M.P. No. 504 of 2015 in Special Case No. 29 of 2011 on the file of Trial Court, had mentioned the name of P.K. Palanichami, M. Malaichami and his name as witness in the 'List of Witnesses' and prayed for summoning them and to examine them as defence persons. In this connection, it is to be relevantly pointed out that the Trial Court had permitted the examination of two witnesses viz., P.K. Palanichami and M. Malaichami stating that the Revision Petitioner/Accused was to be provided one chance to examine those witnesses cited as defence witnesses. However, insofar as his request for examining himself as one of the defence witnesses, the plea of the Revision Petitioner was not adverted to by the Trial Court at the time of passing the impugned order dated 05.11.2015 in Crl.M.P. No. 504 of 2015 in Special Case No. 29 of 2011. 7. However, insofar as his request for examining himself as one of the defence witnesses, the plea of the Revision Petitioner was not adverted to by the Trial Court at the time of passing the impugned order dated 05.11.2015 in Crl.M.P. No. 504 of 2015 in Special Case No. 29 of 2011. 7. It is to be noted that Section 243 of Cr.P.C speaks of 'evidence for defence'. This Section postulates that soon after the prosecution evidence is completed as stated in Section 242 of Cr.P.C., an Accused shall be called upon to enter upon his defence; and if an Accused applies to the Magistrate for issuance of process in calling for any witnesses for the purpose of examination or cross-examination or for the production of any document or other thing, the Learned Magistrate shall issue process unless he considers that such application is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice or the Accused had cross-examined or had the opportunity of cross-examining any witness. One cannot persuade that no cross examination of witness is compelled unless he considers that cross examination by the opposite party who may fore go its rights, if it so desirous or advised. 'Fair Trial' includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove once innocence. Undoubtedly, letting in evidence/adducing evidence in support of ones defence is a valuable right. Denial of that right means that denial of 'Fair Trial'. In reality, the ingredients of Section 243 Cr.P.C, permits the defence to make an application for summoning of its witnesses and imposes the duty upon a Court of law to summon such witnesses. A court of law cannot avoid the duty unless it considers that such application should be refused for any of the reasons specified in Sub Section 2 of Section 243 of Cr.P.C. 8. At this Juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Accused seeks in aid of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Muralidhar reported in (2008) 5 SCC 633 at Special Page 637 in Paragraph 9 whereby and where under, it is observed as follows:- 9. What should be the nature of evidence is not a matter which should be left only to the discretion of the Court. It is the accused who knows how to prove his defence. Y.R. Muralidhar reported in (2008) 5 SCC 633 at Special Page 637 in Paragraph 9 whereby and where under, it is observed as follows:- 9. What should be the nature of evidence is not a matter which should be left only to the discretion of the Court. It is the accused who knows how to prove his defence. It is true that the Court being the matter of proceedings must determine as to whether the application filed by the accused in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 243 of the Code is bona fide or not or whether thereby he intends to bring on record a relevant material. But, ordinarily an accused should be allowed to approach the Court for obtaining its assistance with regard to summoning of witnesses, etc., If permitted to do so, steps therefor, however, must be taken within a limited time. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the accused should not be allowed to unnecessarily protract the trial or summon witnesses whose evidence would not be at all relevant." 9. There is no second opinion on the primordial fact that an Accused had right to 'Fair Trial' and the right to defend oneself and to adduce evidence as very much recognised in terms of the ingredients of Section 243(2) of Cr.P.C. 10. Although, a Court of law is the master of the proceedings before it, yet, in a given case, what type of evidence is to be adduced by an Accused on his side or how to prove his defence, it cannot determine the same. Per contra, how to prove an Accused's innocence in a given case is purely within his ambit and in this regard, an opportunity must be provided to him by a Court of Law in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. In this case, it is for an Accused, who knows how to establish his defence. 11. The only question that arises for consideration is as per Section 243(2) Cr.P.C., a Court of law is to see whether a request/plea made on behalf of the Accused to examine witnesses on his side as defence witnesses is a vexatious or frivolous one. 12. 11. The only question that arises for consideration is as per Section 243(2) Cr.P.C., a Court of law is to see whether a request/plea made on behalf of the Accused to examine witnesses on his side as defence witnesses is a vexatious or frivolous one. 12. If a Court of Law feels that the 'list of witnesses' provided by the Revision Petitioner/Accused is only to protract the proceedings, it is well within its power to dis-allow even the whole relief sought for. After all the aim of providing 'List of Witnesses' and documents to a Court of Law, before the person/Accused is called upon to enter upon his defence is to provide an opportunity to it to peruse the 'List of Witnesses'. 13. As far as the present case is concerned, the Trial Court, while negativing the request of the Revision Petitioner/Accused, to permit him to examine 'A. Sait Babu' (Village Administrative Officer), had opined that it was not necessary to enquire him for the purpose of proving the documents, as public documents and the allowed the plea of the Revision Petitioner by permitting him to examine other two witnesses P.K. Palanichami and Malaichami, for the reasons assigned in the impugned order. 14. In view of the fact that the Respondent/complainant, even though cited the said Village Administrative Officer 'A. Sait Babu' as one of the prosecution witnesses in the 'List of Witnesses' to be examined before the Trial Court in Special Case No. 29 of 2011, it had dispensed with the examination of said 'A. Sait Babu'. 15. In view of the well established principle that what kind of evidence is to be let in by an Accused in a given case on his defence side is not be left within the purview of the Court. Only, the Revision Petitioner/Accused knows his case much better than any one else and also he knows (how to establish his defence) by and large, an Accused, in a given case, ought to be permitted to seek the aid of a Court for securing its assistance in regard to summoning of witnesses etc. 16. In the instant case, the Revision Petitioner/Accused had exercised his right specified in Section 243(2) of Cr.P.C. by filing Crl.M.P. No. 504 of 2015 well within time (on the date he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C). 17. 16. In the instant case, the Revision Petitioner/Accused had exercised his right specified in Section 243(2) of Cr.P.C. by filing Crl.M.P. No. 504 of 2015 well within time (on the date he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C). 17. Viewed in that perspective, the impugned order of the Trial Court in Crl.M.P. No. 504 of 2015 in Special Case No. 29 of 2011 dated 05.11.2015 insofar as it had negatived the request of the Revision Petitioner/Accused to permit him to examine 'A. Sait Babu' (Village Administrative Officer) as one of the defence witnesses on his side, is not a valid and legally tenable one in the Eye of Law. Consequently, this Court interferes with the said impugned order dated 05.11.2015 and allows the Criminal Revision Petition. 18. In fine, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed, the order dated 05.11.2015 in Crl.M.P. No. 504 of 2015 in Special Case. No. 29 of 2011 on the file of Learned Special Judge, Special Court for Trial of P.C. Act Cases, Madurai, is set aside by this Court insofar as refusing to permit the Petitioner to examine 'A. Sait Babu', for the reasons assigned in this Criminal Revision case.