VIRENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. C.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.01.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Court No.4, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.06 of 2013 arising out of RC No.11(A) of 2010, under Sections 120B , 409 , 466 , 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(C) of PC Act, Police Station CBI/ACB/Lucknow, by which, the application B-166 filed by the prosecution has been allowed summoning PW-3 Durgesh Kumar Srivastava for re-examination.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that earlier the prosecution had filed an application for recalling the witness PW-3 Durgesh Kumar Srivastava for re-examination in chief in which an objection had been filed on the ground that the examination in chief has already been conducted and the case has been fixed for cross-examination. The trial court without considering the objection of the revisionist had allowed the application of the prosecution vide order dated 23.01.2019 for re-examination in chief of PW-3. In pursuance of the order dated 23.01.2019, PW-3 was summoned for re-examination in chief. Thereafter, the cross-examination of PW-3 was conducted.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the prosecution has again filed an application B-166 for recalling the witness PW-3 for further examination and cross-examination and the same has been allowed vide impugned order dated 24.01.2020 without considering the objection raised by the revisionist before the learned Court below. The learned trial court while passing the impugned order has wrongly interpreted Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act. The trial court has permitted the prosecution for recording examination in chief thrice, which is illegal and arbitrary.