SUBRATA BHATTACHARJEE Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the legality and the validity of the order dated 15. 12. 2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Kamrup at Guwahati, in Special Case No. 6/2007 in exercise of power under Section 311, Cr PC, allowing the prosecution to recall and re-examine the witnesses, is the subject matter in this revision petition.

(2.) I have heard Mr. J. M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. M. Choudhury and Mr. A. C. Buragohain learned standing counsel for the CBI.

(3.) THE relevant facts to put in short are that the petitioner along with another co-accused had to face criminal prosecution investigated and conducted by CBI (SPE) resulting to registration of the aforesaid Special Case No 6/2007, on submission of the charge sheet on completion of investigation. At the end of the trial, the learned Special Judge vide judgment and order dated 20. 4. 1999 passed in Special Case No 18-C/1995 (as it was then registered), both the accused persons were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Being aggrieved, the CBI preferred Criminal Appeal No 179/1999, which was heard and finally disposed of by this Court on 22. 12. 2006. The aforesaid Criminal Appeal was allowed by this Court and after setting aside order of acquittal, the case was remanded back to the learned trial Judge for further examination of two accused persons under Section 313 (1) (d), Cr PC, and then to dispose of the case. It was also further directed that the learned Trial Judge shall proceeded from the stage of recording of the additional statement of the two persons, and to consider any such other material which may appear on records. Thereafter the learned trial Judge further examined two accused persons under Section 313, Cr PC, by bringing to their notice the circumstances those appeared against them during the course of trial. During such examination the accused persons repudiated most of the incriminating circumstances brought to their notice and the co-accused, namely Milan Kumar Chakravorty also adduced two defence witnesses who were cross-examined by the prosecution and discharged. The petitioner has also denied to have given any specimen signature to the Investigating Officer. There after the prosecution filed an application under Section 311, Cr PC, for recalling the prosecution witnesses, namely Shri S. H. Shah, Shri Jagadish Chand Rajbongshi and PW 11 (the Investigating Officer), contending that their examination was necessary for just decision of the case. The said application was resisted by the petitioner, but the learned trial Judge vide the impugned order over-ruled the objection raised by the petitioner and allowed the prayer to recall and re-examine the aforesaid witnesses, which is the subject matter in this. revision petition.