STATE Vs. S SANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Criminal Original petition has been filed by the State against the order dated 14-11 -2003 made in Cri. M. P. No. 381 of 2003 by the Court of Principal special Judge for C. B. I. cases, Chennai.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that a charge sheet was filed against the respondents/accused for offences under Sections 120b r/w 409, 477a IPC and under Sections 13 (2) r/w 13 (l) (c) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 on the allegations that the respondents while working as Catering superintendents in VLR, Central Station, chennai had entered into a criminal conspiracy during May, 1993 and in pursuance thereof, had misappropriated or otherwise converted for their own use the provisions of stock of Southern Railway, which were entrusted to them or were under their domination, to the tune of Rs. 1,11,808. 05.

(3.) THE further case of the petitioner is that so far the prosecution has examined its witnesses; that the prosecution then filed a petition under Section 311 Cr. P. C. for examination of four additional witnesses, namely S. Gopal, S. Thouladeen, S. F. Raziudeen and K. S. Somanathan to prove the entrustment of provisions to the respondents; that these witnesses are the authors of the records to be proved through them; that since the four witnesses are material witnesses and are available, the prosecution had sought the orders of the trial Court to examine them as additional witnesses; that the documents sought to be deposed by these witnesses are already in the Court as part of the documents filed along with the charge sheet and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents/ accused; that the learned Special Judge dismissed the said petition on 14-11-2003 on ground that the prosecution filed the petition at the fag end of the trial; that the witnesses ought to be examined were not examined during investigation by the Investigating Officer and the reason for not examining the witnesses during investigation was given by the Public Prosecutor and not by the Investigating Officer, since the Investigating Officer might have satisfied himself with the other witnesses cited in the list of witnesses to prove the entrustment. On such averments, he would pray for the relief extracted supra.