STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. BHYRAVARAPU SRI KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P. Kesava Rao, Standing counsel for CBI and Sri P. Kasi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The respondent/accused is facing trial before the I Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case was registered basing on the report of P.W. 1, a cell phone shop owner alleging that the respondent demanded bribe of Rs. 5,000/- for not conducing raid on his cell phone shop. According to the prosecution, after registering the case in a trap laid by the CBI, the respondent accepted an amount of Rs. 3,000/- from PW 1.

(2.) In the course of trial, when P.W. 1 was put to cross examination, the counsel for the respondent/accused confronted him Ex. D1, receipt for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- which is supposed to be towards the cost of cell phone. In response thereto, P.W. 1 admitted that Ex. D. 1 receipt was issued by him. P.W. 1 was treated hostile by the prosecution. The matter went on some adjournments and ultimately it was posted for arguments. At that stage, the prosecution filed Crl.M.P. No. 416 of 2012 in C.C. No. 19 of 2005 under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon one Mr. Yash Pal Sharma, Nokia India Private Limited, Nokia Corporation, Gurgaon, Haryana, India to establish the fact that the cell phone model No. Nokia 6020 was not introduced by the company at all on the relevant date. The said petition was opposed by the respondent/accused and ultimately, the learned First Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases dismissed the said petition by his order dated 19.11.2012. While dismissing the petition, the learned Additional Special Judge took the view that the witness proposed to be examined by the prosecution is not the author of Ex. D. 1, receipt, the petition is belated and the prosecution shall not be permitted to disprove the defence adduced by the accused.

(3.) Now the point for determination in this petition is whether the order passed by the learned Additional Special Judge can be sustained?