(1.) Petitioner is facing trial in Criminal Complaint No. 42/01 titled as CBI v. Rita Singh and Ors. for the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 read with Section 120-B of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. At the stage of final hearing, petitioner had preferred an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for getting examined Mr. B.B. Sharma, DGM (Operation & Administration) of Mesco Airlines, Mr. S.S. Batra, the then Company Secretary, who had purportedly signed letter of 1st March, 1996 from M/s. Mideast (India) Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. B.B. Huria, G.M. (IFCI), requesting issuance of NOC, and Handwriting Expert to establish that letter of 3rd May, 1996 (Ex. P-32/A) purportedly signed by petitioner does not bear her signatures. Trial court vide impugned order of 16th March, 2013 dismissed petitioner's aforesaid application by observing that the witnesses sought to be got examined by petitioner as accused are not necessary and shall in no way assist in just decision of the case.
(2.) At the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioner had vehemently contended that Section 311 of Cr.P.C. mandates permitting of fresh evidence if it is necessary for just decision of this case. To assert so, reliance was placed upon decisions in T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Muralidhar, 2008 5 SCC 633; Kalyani Baskar Vs. M.S. Sampooram, 2007 1 AD(SC) 249; Ronald Wood Mathams Vs. State of West Bengal, 1995 1 SCC 216; Arivazhagan Vs. State, 2000 2 AD(SC) 89; Selvi J. Jayalalitha Vs. State, 2000 7 AD(SC) 302; Mohanlal Shamji Soni Vs. Union of India & Anr., 1991 AIR(SC) 1346 Rajindra Prasad Vs. The Narcotic Cell, 1999 AIR(SC) 2292 P. Sanjeeva Rao Vs. State of AP, 2012 6 AD(SC) 325 P. Chhaganlal Daga Vs. M. Sanjay Shaw, 2003 11 SCC 486; Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat, 2004 5 AD(SC) 323 Surender @ Kalwa Vs. State, 2012 5 AD(Del) 721; Deepak Vs. State,2012 1 JCC(Del) 230 and Radeka Chaudhary Vs. NCT of Delhi,2012 3 JCC(Del) 1773.
(3.) Learned counsel for respondent had drawn the attention of this Court to paragraphs No. 10 to 12 of the impugned judgment to support it and it was submitted that examination of second witness in respect of documents recovered vide panchnama Ex. PW-11/1 (D-26) is just multiplicity of evidence and even if the witness Mr. B.B. Sharma sought to be got examined in respect of the aforesaid documents had signed the panchnama and not the recovered documents, it makes no difference. Regarding examining Mr. S.S. Batra as defence witness, it was asserted by respondent's counsel that his deposition is totally unnecessary as it is not disputed on behalf of prosecution that Mr. S.S. Batra had written a letter of 1st March, 1996 to Mr. B.B. Huria. As regards examination of Handwriting Expert as defence witness in respect of signatures of petitioner on letter of 3rd May, 1996 (Ex. PW-32/A), it was argued by respondent's counsel that petitioner-accused has not denied in her statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. regarding her signing the letter (Ex. PW-32/A) and so, petitioner's application is misconceived and it has been filed just to delay the trial of this case, which is pending for more than a decade and so, this petition ought to be dismissed.