RAKESH MITTAL Vs. C.B.I., SPE, DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 23.04.2019 on application dated 15.04.2019 (paper no. 596B), whereby the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, CBI, Dehradun has rejected the said application to exercise its jurisdiction under Sections 230 and 242(2) of Cr.P.C. to summon the witness, as observed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 15.03.2019, in criminal revision no. 112 of 2019, Rakesh Mittal Vs C.B.I. and another.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of present case are that the revisionist is facing CBI case no. 3 of 2006, titled as CBI Vs Prem Dutt Raturi and another, under Sections 120B read with 420, 467, 471, 468 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at P.S. CBI, SPE, Dehradun. Earlier an application was moved by the revisionist before the trial court stating that the public prosecutor is not producing the witnesses as per the provisions contained in Section 230 and 242 of Cr.P.C. which affects the rights of the revisionist. The trial court rejected the application filed by the revisionist. Then the revisionist was constrained to prefer a criminal revision no. 112 of 2019, titled as Rakesh Mittal Vs CBI and others. This court having heard learned counsel for the parties was pleased to dismiss the said revision vide judgment and order dated 15.03.2019 having considered the fact that the order under challenge in the revision is an interlocutory order which does not affect the rights of the parties. It was observed in said judgment and order that it is not always possible for the prosecution to produce the witnesses. However, the accused should be made aware before adducing any evidence so that the accused may prepare its case for cross- examination. A witness should not be produced by giving surprise to the accused. It was further observed that when a prosecution witness is available there is no requirement to summon the said witness. A witness only can be summoned when witness is not aware of the date fixed or is not available to the prosecution. Further this Court had observed that the trial is pending since long.

(3.) Subsequently, the revisionist moved an application before the trial court stating that in view of the observations made by this Court in paragraph 18 of the judgment and order dated 15.03.2019, passed in Criminal Revision no. 112 of 2019, that the judgment and order passed by this Court be complied with and appropriate direction be issued to the learned prosecutor of the case. Vide impugned order dated 23.04.2019, the said application has been rejected by the Special Judge (CBI) Anti Corruption observing that an application filed by the revisionist to comply with the provisions contained in Section 230 and 242(2) of Cr.P.C. had already been dismissed and the order passed by the trial court has been affirmed by the High Court and no direction has been issued to the trial court, thus the trail court does not find any grounds to issue direction to the public prosecutor to examine the witnesses as per their chronology in the charge sheet. It is further observed that the accused has no such right to ask that a particular witness be produced.