Full Text
Translation output
Crl.M.C.No.2555/2015 Page 1 I-19 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 29th June, 2015
Date of Decision: 29th June, 2015
CRL.M.C. 2555/2015 & Crl.M.A.Nos.9089-90/2015
OM PRAKASH DHAKOLIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Pandey, Advocate
OM PRAKASH DHAKOLIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Pandey, Advocate
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ( CBI) ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Sonia Mathur, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI with Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate
Through: Ms.Sonia Mathur, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI with Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
Petitioner is facing trial in CC No.33/12, CBI Vs. Om Prakash
Dhakolia for the offences under Sections120B/420/468/471 of the IPC read with Section 13 (i) (d) & 13 (2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1981 and vide impugned order of 11th February, 2015, his application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling of Investigating Officer
(PW-21) has been declined by the trial court while noting that
Investigating Officer (PW-21) is a formal witness.
Notice.
On behalf of respondent-CBI, it is submitted that the Investigating
Officer (PW-21) was discharged in pre-lunch session when counsel for
2015:DHC:5027 Crl.M.C.No.2555/2015 Page 2 petitioner was not available.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order of 11th February, 2015, I find that Investigating Officer (PW-21) cannot be said to be a formal witness and for the lapse on the part of petitioner’s counsel, petitioner ought to be put to terms.
In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and impugned order of 11th February, 2015 dismissing petitioner’s application under
Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby quashed subject to cost of `25,000/- to be deposited with the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within a week and upon placing on record its original receipt before the trial court, one effective opportunity be given to petitioner to cross-examine
Investigating Officer (PW-21).
This petition and applications are disposed of in aforesaid terms.
Trial court be apprised of this order forthwith.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JUNE 29, 2015 r 2015:DHC:5027
Petitioner is facing trial in CC No.33/12, CBI Vs. Om Prakash
Dhakolia for the offences under Sections120B/420/468/471 of the IPC read with Section 13 (i) (d) & 13 (2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1981 and vide impugned order of 11th February, 2015, his application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling of Investigating Officer
(PW-21) has been declined by the trial court while noting that
Investigating Officer (PW-21) is a formal witness.
Notice.
On behalf of respondent-CBI, it is submitted that the Investigating
Officer (PW-21) was discharged in pre-lunch session when counsel for
2015:DHC:5027 Crl.M.C.No.2555/2015 Page 2 petitioner was not available.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order of 11th February, 2015, I find that Investigating Officer (PW-21) cannot be said to be a formal witness and for the lapse on the part of petitioner’s counsel, petitioner ought to be put to terms.
In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and impugned order of 11th February, 2015 dismissing petitioner’s application under
Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby quashed subject to cost of `25,000/- to be deposited with the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within a week and upon placing on record its original receipt before the trial court, one effective opportunity be given to petitioner to cross-examine
Investigating Officer (PW-21).
This petition and applications are disposed of in aforesaid terms.
Trial court be apprised of this order forthwith.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JUNE 29, 2015 r 2015:DHC:5027