BALARAM MAJHI Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner along with another, viz., Sanyasi Chandra Naskar has been facing his trial before the Learned Judge, Special Court, C.B.I., Calcutta on the allegation while they were working as the Office Superintendent and the Chief Medical Superintendent at Kasturaba Gandhi Hospital, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, Chittaranjan have misappropriated nearly Rs. 16 lakhs by obtaining medical reimbursement from Imprest Fund on the basis of forged and fabricated papers. In course of the said trial after examination of 17 witnesses were already over, the present petitioner moved an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer for recalling P.W. 7 Sri Animesh Dhar, the Chief Vigilance Officer, P.W. 13 A. S. Gupta, the Handwriting Expert, P.W. 16 Sri S. Dharani, General Manager for their re-examination. The trial Court rejected such prayer, hence this criminal revision.

(2.) Heard the Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the materials on record, more particularly the impugned order.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that out of its total 19 witnesses, the prosecution has already examined 17 witnesses and the Investigating Officers of the case are yet to be examined. It was further submitted that the learned lawyer who was defending the petitioner due to his illness has to retire from the case and a new lawyer was engaged to defend him. The said new Counsel after taking over the charge and going through the records of the case felt and considered. P.W. 7, the Chief Vigilance Officer, P.W. 13 Handwriting Expert and P.W. 16 the General Manager, who gave the sanction for prosecution were required to be cross-examined further and accordingly on 12th of January, 2010 an application under Section 311 was filed. In connection with the said application another application was filed on 3rd of February, 2010 in which the petitioner disclosed as to why their cross-examination on recall was necessary, but the Learned Court below without assigning any just and valid reason rejected such prayer. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. as well as the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the other accused persons vehemently opposed this criminal revision and submitted that no crossexamination of the said witnesses are necessary for just decision of the case and it is a dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioner so as to preclude the conclusion of the trial.