RAHUL ARORA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this revision petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by Special Judge (CBI), Haryana, Panchkula, whereby his prayer to summon witnesses from Sudan, has been declined on the ground that this is wholly misconceived and that he had already taken 4 months to examine these witnesses. The defence evidence thereafter has been closed and the case was fixed for arguments on 7.11.2011.

(2.) It is noticed from the record that the petitioner had earlier also filed a Miscellaneous Petition No. 30216 of 2011, which was disposed of as premature on 5.10.2011. The petitioner had approached this Court through the said petition, apprehending that the defence evidence shall be abruptly closed and the parties shall be asked to address arguments. It was alleged that the application filed by the petitioner for examining certain witnesses was statedly not receiving due attention of the Court. This Court, however, found that the prayer, thus, made was premature and had dismissed the petition on 5.10.2011. It was observed that if and when any order closing the defence evidence was made, the petitioner may approach this Court. The petitioner has accordingly approached this Court, when his evidence has been closed by order of the Special Judge.

(3.) The facts noticed, in brief, are that the petitioner is facing prosecution under Section 120-B read with Sections 467, 468, 420 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s Himachal Filament (P) Ltd. and has availed financial assistance from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Panchkula (Haryana). He has established a manufacturing export oriented Unit at Kala Amb (Himachal Pradesh). The Unit had commenced production and was in business of exporting the product. The Unit used to take advance against bill of goods sent to foreign country from the Bank after fulfilling the required formalities. It is stated that the Unit became defunct for various reasons and the Bank had started recovery proceedings against the Company and its Directors. The Bank had also lodged a complaint against the Company and the Directors, leading to registration of present FIR. It is stated that the matter between the Director of the Company and the Bank has ended in a compromise and the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs. 1.10 Crore to the Bank. The case, however, registered against the Company is still in progress and the recording of prosecution evidence has been concluded on 1.6.2011, after examination of 49 witnesses. The statement of the petitioner-accused was recorded on 26.7.2011 and he has given list of 18 witnesses, which he desires to examine before the Trial Court. On 30.7.2011, the Court heard the petitioner on the application so filed and noticed that the counsel has not explained the purpose of summoning all the witnesses mentioned in the application. When the petitioner was confronted with this situation, his counsel made a statement that he may be allowed to summon the witnesses at his own responsibility. Besides, the counsel also undertook to conclude the defence evidence by August 2011. Dasti summons were given to the petitioner to serve the witnesses at his own responsibility. The case was fixed for 16.8.2011 and thereafter was adjourned to 23.9.2011.