TARACHAND AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Niranjan Moharana, learned Addl. Standing counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department.

(2.) This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, who is an accused in G.R. Case No.13 of 2008, challenging the order dated 02.08.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna in G.R. Case No.13 of 2008 rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner to recall the P.W.2 who has examined, cross-examined and discharged on 04.07.2014.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner wants to ask certain questions to P.W.2 as to whether freezers which stated to have been supplied, belong to one Company or different Companies and the serial number appearing in Ext.38 relates to a single freezer or three different freezers. Since the aforesaid P.W.2 had not stated that his company has supplied the aforesaid freezers to the Accused-petitioner and P.W.2 was examined by the prosecution as the Investigating Agency taken assistance of the said P.W.2 to ascertain the capacity of the freezers held, the cross-examination of the said witness on recall to clarify the aforesaid is not to serve any purpose. It appears that the trial Court had also taken note of the fact that in view of the categorical answer of the P.W.2 about the storage and cooling capacity of the Air Conditioners of Sriram Air Conditioning Private Limited and also Usha International Limited and Sriram Air Conditioning Private Limited and Usha International Limited are separate Companies as has been brought out by the defence through evidence of P.W.2, the question desired to be asked is an afterthought and aimed at protracting the trial, holding the same the trial Court rejected the prayer made.