RANJIT DADLANI Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 20.3.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge IV, (PC Act) CBI, Delhi in case CC No.75/2008, whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was partially disallowed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer in the office of AE, Subdivision 5B, CPWD Curzan Road, New Delhi. As per the prosecution's case, one Mohd. Ali Zamir made a written complaint to the S.P. Anti Corruption Branch, CBI on 11.3.1996 to the effect that he was the partner in a firm M/s Zamiruddin and Sons which got a work order from CPWD. The said work was completed by the aforesaid company in November, 1995 and a total bill of around Rs. 6,77,449/- was raised by the said company while as the department had made a payment of Rs. 3 lacs only. An amount of Rs. 3,77,449/- was allegedly outstanding to be paid to the said firm for the work done. It was alleged by the complainant that the petitioner was posted as a Junior Engineer and was looking after the work pertaining to the job awarded to the complainant. It was alleged that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on 9 th March, 1996 as a commission for preparation of the bills of the complainant. A complaint was made to the AntiCorruption Branch and on the basis of the said complaint, a case under Sections 7/13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered and the present petitioner was apprehended at Rajendra Prasad Road Road along with currency notes of Rs. 20,000/- which were recovered from the dickey of his scooter on the date of the incident. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the case is pending trial for the last more than 16 years. The present petitioner had filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning and examination of certain witnesses in his defence. The CBI had opposed the said application vehemently.

(3.) In the application, the petitioner had made three fold requests. The first prayer was for recalling of DW-6, Rajendra Singhvi for the purpose of further examination as the case of the petitioner was that after he had testified, Rajendra Singhvi, Advocate had filed an application on 13.06.1999 under RTI Act and he received some documents and therefore, in order to prove said documents, he may be summoned for the purpose of further examination/cross examination. The second prayer was that the prosecution had examined Inspector R.S. Bedi, ASI Ranjit Singh and SI R.K.Shivanna and the said witnesses be recalled for the purpose of proving their credibility, inasmuch as, they had stated that the complaint on the basis of which the report had been filed was not traceable while as, he wants to prove to the contrary. For this purpose, the petitioner relied upon the information which has been gathered on the basis of RTI Act. The third prayer of the petitioner was that he may be permitted to examine the Office Superintendent, ACB, CBI and the Asstt. Director (Official language) ACB, CBI, New Delhi for the purpose of establishing the record which was given to the present petitioner under RTI Act in order to destroy the credibility of the witnesses who have testified against him.