RAMESH SAXENA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission. This revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act")), whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the code for further cross-examination of B.S. Baskel (PW22) and Nathan Singh Rathore (PW37) was rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court had miserably failed to appreciate that Baskel and Rathore were vital witnesses to unveil the issues as regard to illegal appointments of Managers in the Cooperative Societies in the light of the order dated 19/4/04 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 6140/2002. According to him, cross-examination of the aforesaid two witnesses was conducted by Shri M.K. Banga, Advocate who unfortunately expired pendete lite and, the new counsel engaged by the petitioner, after going through the statements of these witnesses, found that their cross-examination was inconclusive and it was in the interests of justice to further cross-examine them. To buttress the contention, reliance was placed on decision of the Apex Court in Hoffman Andreas Vs. Inspector of Customs, Amritsar (: (2000) 10 SCC 430).

(3.) A bare perusal of the impugned order would reveal that Shri Baskel had already been cross-examined on the point on which further cross-examination is sought and that during cross-examination the Advocate (since deceased) was in sound mental health. Moreover, Baskel was cross-examined on 21/2/11, whereas, the said counsel expired on 13/11/12. Trial Court further observed that Nathan Singh was cross-examined on 28/7/12 by Mukesh Saxena, Advocate and the said counsel had appeared and cross-examined before the trial Court in as many as 8 cases upto October 2012 in fit mental condition. Accordingly, the trial Court held that the facts of the case not being identical to the precedents cited, the same were of no avail to the petitioner.