ASIF BALWA Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these petitions, a short question arises for determination. The challenge is to the proceedings and dated 20.12.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, conducting trial of the cases known as "2G Spectrum".

(2.) PW 7 was under further cross examination on 20.12.2011. After he was cross examined at length running into 12 pages and further cross examination was deferred, the learned counsel for the petitioners objected to the presence of the IO Mahesh Kumar and associate IO Rajesh Chahal in the court room. The main objection that was raised was that these police officers were also cited as witnesses by the prosecution. The learned Special Judge recorded his observations, "Per se, I do not find anything wrong with the presence of the IO and Associate IO in the court room".

(3.) THE bone of contention of learned counsel for the petitioners was that the presence of the IO and associate IO in the court room, when they themselves are the witnesses and the testimony of the other witness was being recorded, is prejudicial to a fair trial. It was submitted that witness under cross examination may not depose truthfully and may also get afraid of by the presence of IO. It was submitted that since the IO is generally examined at the end, by his presence in the court he would come to know about the defence of the accused and it would impact his effective cross examination. Learned counsel relied upon cases of Achyutana Pitchaiah Sarna v Gorantla Chinna Veeraya and others [ : AIR 1961 AP 420]; Dr. Kasi Iyer v State of Kerala [ : 1966 Cri.LJ 1445]; and Lalmani v Bejaj Ram [AIR 1934 SC 840]