Natasha Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

1. Petitioner is facing trial in Criminal Complaint No.42/01 titled as CBI V. Rita Singh and Ors. for the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 read with Section 120-B of IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. At the stage of final hearing, petitioner had preferred an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for getting examined Mr. B.B.Sharma, DGM (Operation & Administration) of Mesco Airlines, Mr. S.S. Batra, the then Company Secretary, who had purportedly signed letter of March, CrlMC.1324/2009 Page I of 7 2013:DHC:7325 1996 from M/s. Mideast (India) Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. B.B. Huria, G.M. (IFCI), requesting issuance ofNOC, andHandwriting Expert to establish that letter of May, 1996 {Ex.P-32/A) purportedly signedby petitioner does not bear her signatures.

2. Trial court vide impugned order of 16*^^ March, 2013 dismissed petitioner's aforesaid application by observing that the witnesses sought to be got examined by petitioner as accused are not necessary and shall in no way assist injust decision ofthe case.

3. At the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioner had vehemently contended that Section 311 of Cr.P.C. mandates permitting offresh evidence ifit is necessary for just decision ofthis case. To assert so, reliance wasplaced upon decisions in T. Nagappav. Y.R. Muralidhar (2008) 5 see 633; Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampooram (2007) 2 SCC 258; Ronald Wood Mathams v. State of West Bengal(1995) 1 SCC 216; Arivazhagan v. State (2000) 3 SCC 328; Selvi J Jayalalitha v. State (2000) 9 SCC 754; Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union ofIndia &Anr. AIR 1991 SC 1346; Rajindra Prasad v. The Narcotic Cell AIR 1999 SC 2292; P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State ofAPAIR2012 SC 2242; P. Chhaganlal Daga V. M. Sanjay Shaw (2003) 11 SCC 486; Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh V. State of Gujarat AIR 2004 SC 3114; Surender @ Kalwa v. State (GNCT) 2012 (V) AD (Delhi) 721; Deepak v. State 2012 (1) JCC 230 (Delhi) and Radeka Chandhary v. NCTofDelhi 2012 (3) JCC 1773.

4. Learned counsel for respondent had drawn the attention of this Court toparagraphs No. 10 to 12 ofthe impugned judgment tosupport it and it was submitted that examination of second witness in respect of documents recovered vide panchnama Ex.PW-11/1 (D-26) is just Crl.M.C.1324/2009 ~ Page 2of[7] multiplicity of evidence and even ifthe witness Mr. B.B. Sharma sought to be got examined in respect of the aforesaid documents had signed the panchnama and not the recovered documents, it makes no difference. Regarding examining Mr. S.S. Batra as defence witness, it was asserted by respondent's counsel that his deposition is totally unnecessary as it is not disputed on behalf of prosecution that Mr. S.S. Batra had written a letter of 1®^ March, 1996 to Mr. B.B. Huria. As regards examination of Handwriting Expert as defence witness in respect of signatures of petitioner on letter of May, 1996 (Ex.PW-32/A), it was argued by respondent's counsel that petitioner-accused has not denied in her statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. regarding her signing the letter (Ex.PW-32/A) and so, petitioner's application is misconceived and it has been filed just to delay the trial of this case, which is pending for more than a decade and so, this petition ought to be dismissed.

5. Both the sides have been heard. Impugned order, copy of chargesheet and the material on record as well as the decisions cited have been meticulously considered and thereupon, I find that it is beyond any dispute that an accused has a right to fair trial and the rules ofprocedure designed to ensure justice have to be scrupulously followed and that delay alone cannot come in the way of administration of justice. It is equally true that an accused knows how to prove his defence, and what should be the nature of evidence is a matter which should not be left to the discretion of the court, but the issue whether the evidence sought to be led by invoking Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is essential to the just decision ofthe case falls within the jurisdiction ofthe courts to determine. Crl.M.C.1324/2009 A

6. The objective underiined in Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the evidence led by the parties. The determinative factor is whether the evidence sought to be led is essential for thejust decision of the case or not. The discretion conferred by Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised judiciously.

7. Having noted the legal position emerging from the decisions cited, this Court has scrutinized the impugned order and finds that the trial court has succinctly dealt with therelevance of three witnesses sought to be got examined by petitioner in paragraphs No.10 to 12 of the impugned order, which are as under: - "Thefirst witness sought to be examined on behalfof applicant is Mr. B.B. Sharma, who was a witness to the panchnama prepared by the Income tax department, during raid at the premises of Mideast (India) Ltd. in February, 1997. In the brief summary, submitted on behalfofapplicant, it isstatedthatasper the allegations, photocopies of the letter head of IFCI Ex.PWll/5, allegedly having the photocopies of the impression signatures of accused Y.V. Luthra, were recovered during the search and the panchnama Ex. PWll/1 (D-

26) was prepared. It is claimed that the details of the papers seized are not mentioned in the panchnama and what was mentioned in the annexures (Inventory) attached to the same and in the inventories, recovery of the bunch marked Ex.PWll/5 has not been mentioned. Mr. B.B. Sharma has signed the panchnama and he is sought to be examined on behalfofapplicant to the effect that bunch Ex.PWll/5, was not recoveredfrom the office Crl.M.C.1324/2009 ~ Page 4of[7] ofMESCO. As per the annexuresto the panchnama, no details of the documents have been given and only document numbers are given which are numbering more than a thousand and the documents in question appearing at S.No.91 out oftotal groupings of106. The witness has not signed the inventory nor the documents in question, which were seized, having signed only the panchnama andso, simply bystating that a particular set of document whichformed part of the document seized, as per panchnama, were not recovered, amounts to nothing, unless the witness is having record or proofof the documents which were seized. As regards the signatures ofthe witnessnot appearing on the documents seized, particularly Ex.PWl1/5, the issue can be argued on behalfofthe applicant/accused and in the light ofthe facts, evidentiary value can be put to the deposition of PW-11, the Income tax officer, by whom raid was conducted and the documents seized. Deposition ofMr. B.B. Sharma in the circumstances, shall make no material difference and the witness is not at all necessary for thejust decision ofthe case. The second witness sought to be examined on behalf ofapplicant is Mr. S.S. Batra and as per the allegations, he had signed a letter dated 01.03.96 addressed to Mr. B.B. Huria (PW-2) for issuance offirst NOC and said letter was handed over by him to Mr. B.B. Huria. In the briefsummary, it is claimed that neither Mr. S.S. Batra nor of the accused persons ever contacted accused Y. V. Luthra for issuance ofNOC and thus, it is claimed that the evidence is necessary to negate the evidence of criminal conspiracy. Mr. S.S. Batra deposing that he had not met accused YV Luthra for issuance of NOC amounts to nothing, when it is not the case of the Crl.M.C.1324/2009 prosecution and no evidence to that effect has been adduced that Mr. S.S. Batra had ever met accused Y.V. Luthra, for giving shape to the criminal conspiracy. Mr.S.S. Batra had written a letter dated 01.03.96 addressed to Mr.B.B. Huria and thisfact is not disputed on behalf of prosecution. Whether or not other coaccused had met Mr. Y. V. Luthra, Mr.S.S. Batra would not be in a position to testify. At the most, he can testify that at a particular place at a particular time where he was present, none of the accused persons were present, but that is not the purpose of deposition of Mr. S.S. Batra. This witness is totally immaterial and unnecessary. As regards the examination of handwriting expert, it is in regard to signature of applicant on Ex.PW32/A, letter dated 03.05.96 at pt. Q[7] which as per the case of the prosecution is that ofthe applicant. In the application moved, the applicant has stated that in her statement u/S 313 CrPC, she had specifically stated that signatures appearing on the NOC dated 03.05.96 Ex.PW32/A, although looked like that ofher signatures, but same do not belong to her. The handwriting expert is sought to be examined to establish that those questioned signatures are not ofapplicant Natasha Singh. In reply to question no.89, in statement u/S 313 CrPC, the applicant Natasha Singh stated that signatures at pt.Q[7] on Ex.PW32/A appeared to look of hers but those do not belong to.her as she does not remember having put any signatures on any document, certified to be true copy. In a way, the applicant is stating the signatures at point Q-7 on Ex.PW32/A looked like that ofher but since she does not remember having put her signatures on any such document, so, same does not belong to her. PW-40 Rabi Crl.M.C.1324/2009 ^ ^ Page 6of[7] Lai Thapa has testified as to the signatures, as that of applicant Natasha Singh on Ex.PW32/A, as well as his own writing on the document and also deposed as regards to havingfaxed the documents on the asking of the applicant. Even otherwise, the deposition by an handwriting expert by itself, cannot be conclusive proof So, merely because PW-32 SkS L Mukhi, being an handwriting expert, had come to the conclusion that questioned signatures appearing at point Q-7 on Ex.PW32/A resemble with the specimen signature of the applicant, a conclusion or deposition to the contrary, of another handwriting expert, shall in no way strengthen or weaken the evidentiary value of an handwriting expert, which has to be considered in the light of attending facts and circumstances, under which the questioned documents were signed."

8. After having heard learned senior counsel for petitioner, I find no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the trial court as noted hereinabove. The evidence sought to be led by petitioner-accused is not at all essential for the just decision of this case. Consequently, this petition is dismissed while refraining to comment upon the merits of this case lest it may prejudice either side at trial. (SUNIL GAUR) Judge APRIL 08, 2013 J|1 ij S,^ SapreW- OTpok-'ir js.h<i gAji'ig. Moi-g-