CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. TUNCAY ALANKUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 14-7-2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Tuncay Alankus v. CBI, whereby and whereunder the respondent's revisional application from an order of the learned Special Judge dated 11-10-2004 in regard to examination of defence witnesses had been allowed in part.

(2.) The respondent herein was charged for commission of offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 409, 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Sections 7, 11 and 13(l)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and Sections 409, 420 IPC, Sections 7, 11 and 13(l)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Examination of the prosecution witnesses before the Special Judge, admittedly, is over. The respondent has also been examined under Section 313 CrPC. He produced a list of 63 defence witnesses. The learned Special Judge examined at some length as to whether the deposition of the said witnesses would be necessary and by reason of an order dated 11-10-2004 opined that six out of 63 witnesses cited on behalf of the defence should be allowed to be examined. Some of these witnesses were directed to be examined through videoconferencing. It was, furthermore, directed that the defence shall obtain willingness from the witnesses and also the dates which would be convenient to them for their examination on videoconferencing.

(3.) Aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied therewith the respondent filed an application for review of the said order. It was dismissed. An application under Article 277 of the Constitution of India was, thereafter, filed and by reason of a judgment and order dated 31-1-2005, it was opined that exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India would be inappropriate. It was observed that the remedy of the respondents, if any, for ventilating their grievances in relation to such order would be an appropriate application under Section 397 or 482 CrPC. Some other observations were also made in relation to other parts of the order impugned before it. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said observations, the respondent filed a revisional application before the High Court being No. 126 of 2005.