Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 143 (DEL)

Ranjit Dadlani v. State NCT of Delhi THR. CBI

2013-01-17

V.K.SHALI

body2013
JUDGMENT V.K. Shali, J. 1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 20.3.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge–IV, (PC Act) CBI, Delhi in case CC No.75/2008, whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was partially disallowed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer in the office of AE, Sub-division 5B, CPWD Curzan Road, New Delhi. As per the prosecution’s case, one Mohd. Ali Zamir made a written complaint to the S.P. Anti Corruption Branch, CBI on 11.3.1996 to the effect that he was the partner in a firm M/s Zamiruddin and Sons which got a work order from CPWD. The said work was completed by the aforesaid company in November, 1995 and a total bill of around Rs. 6,77,449/- was raised by the said company while as the department had made a payment of Rs. 3 lacs only. An amount of Rs. 3,77,449/- was allegedly outstanding to be paid to the said firm for the work done. It was alleged by the complainant that the petitioner was posted as a Junior Engineer and was looking after the work pertaining to the job awarded to the complainant. It was alleged that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on 9th March, 1996 as a commission for preparation of the bills of the complainant. A complaint was made to the Anti- Corruption Branch and on the basis of the said complaint, a case under Sections 7/13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered and the present petitioner was apprehended at Rajendra Prasad Road Road along with currency notes of Rs. 20,000/-which were recovered from the dickey of his scooter on the date of the incident. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the case is pending trial for the last more than 16 years. The present petitioner had filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning and examination of certain witnesses in his defence. The CBI had opposed the said application vehemently. 3. In the application, the petitioner had made three fold requests. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the case is pending trial for the last more than 16 years. The present petitioner had filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning and examination of certain witnesses in his defence. The CBI had opposed the said application vehemently. 3. In the application, the petitioner had made three fold requests. The first prayer was for recalling of DW-6, Rajendra Singhvi for the purpose of further examination as the case of the petitioner was that after he had testified, Rajendra Singhvi, Advocate had filed an application on 13.06.1999 under RTI Act and he received some documents and therefore, in order to prove said documents, he may be summoned for the purpose of further examination/cross examination. The second prayer was that the prosecution had examined Inspector R.S. Bedi, ASI Ranjit Singh and SI R.K. Shivanna and the said witnesses be recalled for the purpose of proving their credibility, inasmuch as, they had stated that the complaint on the basis of which the report had been filed was not traceable while as, he wants to prove to the contrary. For this purpose, the petitioner relied upon the information which has been gathered on the basis of RTI Act. The third prayer of the petitioner was that he may be permitted to examine the Office Superintendent, ACB, CBI and the Asstt. Director (Official language) ACB, CBI, New Delhi for the purpose of establishing the record which was given to the present petitioner under RTI Act in order to destroy the credibility of the witnesses who have testified against him. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for CBI. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently prayed for setting aside the order of the learned Special Judge on the ground that it has caused serious prejudice to the present petitioner inasmuch as he has not been permitted to recall DW-6 for the purpose of examination/cross examination with regard to the documents which he had received under the RTI Act. It has also been contended by the learned counsel that three prosecution witnesses, Inspector R.S. Bedi, ASI Ranjit Singh and SI R.K. Shivanna have testified that the record which the petitioner want is not available as the same has been destroyed but the petitioner wants to prove that this record is still available and, therefore, the testimony of these witnesses is not correct. 6. So far as the third prayer is concerned that has already been allowed and, therefore, the petitioner does not raise any grievance. The petitioner in support of his case has placed reliance on Aneeta Hada Vs. M/s. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.; 2012(4) SCALE 644 . 7. I have gone through the record as well as the said judgment. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that this is a case where the petitioner is facing trial under Prevention of Corruption Act in which the allegations against him are that he was apprehended on the spot with currency notes of Rs. 20,000/-which were purportedly being taken by him as a commission for sanctioning the pending bills of the complainant. The trial of the case has been on for the last 16 years. The petitioner is stated to be indulging in dilatory tactics. The petitioner has also examined DW-6 in support of his defence. If the petitioner has already examined DW-6 as his defence witness, he ought to have proved all documents which he wanted to establish through the testimony of the said witness. The petitioner cannot be permitted to examine the witness twice; firstly with regard to an oral statement and then allegedly after obtaining certain copies of the documents or on the basis of certain information obtained under the RTI Act. If this is permitted to be done, then a party would be free to fill up lacunas in his defence at whatever stage, he wants to do the same. Moreover, it would make the conclusion of the trial itself uncertain. The criminal trial has to be necessarily a fair trial but the fair trial especially in respect of a social economic offence, like an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, does not mean that it is to be stretched to such an extent where a trial, should spill over more than 16 or 17 years. The criminal trial has to be necessarily a fair trial but the fair trial especially in respect of a social economic offence, like an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, does not mean that it is to be stretched to such an extent where a trial, should spill over more than 16 or 17 years. Even as on date, even if the defence of the petitioner is closed and the arguments are heard, it is likely to take couple of months before the judgment can be pronounced. A trial under Prevention of Corruption Act for such a long period of 16 years in itself defeat the very purpose for which the Act was enacted. The Prevention of Corruption Act was enacted for the purpose of checking corruption by the public servants in discharge of their duties. Therefore, I feel that in the instant case, the petitioner is deliberately adopting these kinds of tactics to delay the disposal of the case, the same analogy would be applicable to the testimony of three witnesses of the prosecution namely Inspector R.S. Bedi, ASI Ranjit Singh and SI R.K. Shivanna. The case of the petitioner is that these witnesses have not testified truthfully. This statement or the stand is taken by the petitioner on the basis of the information gathered by him under the RTI Act. It is not a case of the petitioner that he has not cross examined these three witnesses. The petitioner had ample opportunity to cross examine and demolish the credibility of these witnesses. Merely because the petitioner has chosen to obtain information belatedly under the RTI Act which may be helpful to him does not mean that he can at his whims and fancies recall the witnesses of the prosecution and then subject them to cross-examination afresh in the light of the documents gathered by him. The credibility of the witnesses of the prosecution can still be demolished by the petitioner by examining his own witnesses for which an opportunity has been given to him by the trial court. 9. In the totality of facts and circumstances, I feel that the impugned order which has been passed by the Special Judge does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 9. In the totality of facts and circumstances, I feel that the impugned order which has been passed by the Special Judge does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. There is no gross abuse of the processes of law nor does any order requires to be passed to the contrary then the one which has been passed by the learned Special Judge for the effective disposal of the criminal case against the present petitioner. 10. I do not find any merit in the petition of the petitioner and accordingly, the same is dismissed.