S RAMKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to call for the records in Crl.M.P. No. 3398 of 2010 in C.C. No. 24 of 2009 and to set aside the order passed by the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 3398 of 2010 in C.C. No. 24 of 2009 dated 11.01.2011 and to permit him to summon, at least the Inspector of Police, CBI/Mr. K.A.A. Salam to give evidence apart from marking the file seized from his office premises.

(2.) The Petitioner is the sixth accused in the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 24 of 2009. The Respondent has laid charge-sheet for the various offences and the case is of the year 1999. When the entire evidence is over and the matter was posted for arguments, the Petitioner has filed an application in Crl. M.P. No. 3398/2010 with specific plea Under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to re-open the case and pass orders for summoning the witnesses to speak about the defence exhibit which is in the nature and form of entire file alleged to be containing certain documents recovered during the search conducted by one of the witnesses namely, Mr. K.A.A. Salam, the Inspector of Police, CBI.

(3.) This petition was strongly objected by the Respondent. The entire counter filed by the Respondent would show that the Petitioner who is only A6 has been protracting the matter without allowing to conclude the trial and to pronounce the judgment. It is also contended that A1 to A5 has already advanced their arguments and when the matter was posted for arguments on the side of A6, such application is filed which would show the intention of the Petitioner. It is also contended that the alleged document can be marked as defence exhibit Under Section 294 of Code of Criminal Procedure, and the prosecution has no objection to mark those documents. By a rejoinder, the Petitioner would state that he was only an Auditor to the alleged accused and the officer of the Respondent has searched his premises and seized certain documents which were not produced before the court below and relied on by the CBI. Hence, to prove the innocence of the Petitioner, the officer who has conducted the search has to be examined as defence witness. They had also relied on the judgment reported in Chandra Sekhar v. State of Rajesthan, 1992 CrLJ 4039for the proposition and stated that the witnesses can be summoned at any time of the criminal proceedings.