G S RAJU Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure assailing an order dated 4.1.2011 passed by the Special Judge, CBI in case FIR No. RC-DAI-2008-A-0004-DLI dated 4.1.2008, whereunder an application under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Respondent praying inter alia for recalling PW-9, Inspector Prem Nath, CBI ACB, New Delhi and PW-12, SI Manish Kumar Upadhaya, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, was allowed.

(2.) Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Special Judge, CBI erred in allowing the aforesaid application filed by the Respondent as such a permission would amount to permitting the Respondent to fill up the lacunae in its case, which had arisen after evidence had been led by the Petitioner in his defense, and hence, would amount to nullifying such evidence. He further states that the procedure prescribed for visitors at the office of the CBI is clear, and no clarification is required on the same, especially in light of the depositions of PW-9 as recorded on 5.9.2009 and PW-12 as recorded on 28.8.2010. He therefore submits that the aforesaid order is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Per contra, counsel for the Respondent submits that the aforesaid application had to be moved for re-examination of PW-9 and PW-12 in view of some confusion with regard to the entry of the names of PW-7, Sh.N.K. Awasthi and PW-10, Sh. Jagdish Singh on 3.1.2008 and 4.1.2008 respectively, in the visiting register kept at the reception of the CBI office. It is submitted that the application was filed with a view to remove ambiguity about the system in place at the CBI office, for making an entry in the visiting register, whenever an independent witness would visit the CBI office for the purpose of assisting the Department in laying a trap. He further states that since the defence has already produced relevant information received from the CBI under the Right to Information Act, pertaining to the copy of the visitors register maintained at the office of the CBI on the relevant dates and the aforesaid documents have become part of the record, no injustice shall be caused to the Petitioner by recalling the aforesaid witnesses for re-examination. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.T.of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Anr. v. Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, 2006 7 SCC 529.