Ranjit Dadlani v. State Through CBI

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? V.K. SHALI, J.(Oral)

1. This is a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 06.09.2011 by virtue of which the application of the petitioner for summoning of six witnesses as Court Witness was dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner wants he can examine them in his defence and he may do so, so far as the examination of the witnesses as Court Witness is concerned, that stage has 2011:DHC:5067 not yet arrived as the petitioner has yet to adduce his defence.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing a trial for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution case against the accused persons is that a complaint Ex.PW-1/A made by Mohd. Ali Zamir was received on 11.03.1996, who alleged that the petitioner had demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000/- as a commission or reward for preparation of a final bill for a contract awarded to his firm M/s Zamiruddin & Sons vide agreement dated 03.08.1995, to carry out the work of 5-B, Sub-Division Curzon Road, New Delhi

3. On the basis of the said complaint a trap was laid down and a raiding party reached to the office of the present petitioner who had, some conversation with the complainant about the bribe and thereafter accused No.1 called co-accused Arun Kumar Singh from the adjacent room and told him to receive the bribe amount from the complainant outside the office. The complainant insisted upon the petitioner to accompany them because bribe was settled with him and, therefore, it was for him to accept the same. On this complainant as well as the present petitioner and his co-accused came out of the office and the co-accused started his scooter. The petitioner sat on the pillion seat and told the complainant to follow them on his own scooter. They all proceeded towards Jaswant Singh Road where they turned towards Rajendra Prasad Road where the co-accused Arun Kumar Singh stopped the scooter. The present petitioner signaled the complainant to stop and then he talked with the complainant about the bribe money which he accepted and after opening the dickey of the scooter of his co-accused, Arun Kumar kept the money amounting to Rs.20,000/- in the same. On the signal being given by the complainant the trap party then apprehended the petitioner on the spot along with the tainted money which was recovered from the dickey of the scooter of the co-accused.

4. The case of the present petitioner is that the log books of the vehicles and the visitors register at his office will show that the vehicle of the CBI members who had entered the area where the office was situated as well as the visit of the present petitioner and therefore certain records and witnesses were sought to be summoned.

5. Without going into the further details it would be suffice to mention here that High Court had earlier passed an order on 27.02.2004 on the application of the petitioner that certain records be produced at the time when the IO is examined. So far as the application of the present petitioner for examination of these witnesses is concerned, it has been observed that this request was to be made to the Court but this request was not made on the ground that in case these witnesses were produced in defence, will the accused not be able to cross-examine them.

6. It was further observed by the Learned Special Judge that the petitioner had filed a similar application on 13.02.2009 seeking summoning of the present witnesses mentioned at serial No.1 to 5 of this very application which was dismissed on 26.02.2010 by holding that at that stage the application was not maintainable and the petitioner is at liberty to move such an application at the stage of defence evidence. Now when the defence evidence has started the present petitioner has renewed his application seeking summoning of these five witnesses and added one more witness i.e. the Ahlmad of the Court of Sh.V.K.Maheshwari, Learned Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts.

7. The ground for summoning these witnesses as stated hereinabove is that the petitioner’s right to crossexamine will not survive in case witnesses are produced in defence. Learned Special Judge has once again observed that question as to whether a person should be summoned as a Court witness or not will be considered, once the defendant closes his evidence. It is for the trial Court essentially to form an opinion whether the testimony of any witness will be necessary for the just and proper decision of the case or not. If it comes to such a conclusion then this application will be allowed, failing which the application will be dismissed. The Court also observed that the petitioner is free to examine these witnesses in defence.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order. I do not find that the impugned order suffers from any infirmity or illegality. Much less there is any gross abuse of processes of law or any order to the contrary is required to be passed to further the interest of justice. The issue which is involved in the present case is as to whether the witnesses whose details are given in the application and in the impugned order whether they have to be summoned as Court witness or not? The learned Special Judge has rightly observed that so far as the question of examination of these witnesses as Court witness is concerned, that stage has still not arisen because that stage would arise only after the petitioner will closes his defence evidence.

9. The learned Special Judge has rightly observed that defendant is free to summon these witnesses in his defence. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.

10. Since the main petition is dismissed no order is required to be passed in the pending applications, as the same also stand dism issed.

SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 V.K. SHALI, J mr