Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 231 (UTT)

S. K. Bhatnagar v. C. B. I.

2016-06-01

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. By means of present criminal revision, the revisionist, who is an accused in a C.B.I. case, seeks to set aside the order dated 24.02.2016, passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI), Dehradun, in CBI case no. 06 of 2013, whereby the said Court has rejected application no. 99-B moved by the accused-revisionist under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking recall/re-examination of the witness-complainant Mukim Ahmed. 2. The impugned order is dated 24.02.2016, whereby, after good deal of cross-examination, further opportunity to cross-examine PW2 Mukim Ahmed was closed by the trial court. Thereafter, an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the accused, which was dismissed by the trial court and, hence present criminal revision. 3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence thus recorded by the trial court. 4. The revisionist wanted to further cross-examine PW2 on following five points:- (i) there is no entry of complainant’s name in the visiting register, (ii) false implication of the accused, (iii) question relating to work order, (iv) question relating to recovery memo, and lastly (v) question relating to arrest memo. 5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that since enough questions have been asked on question nos. 1 and 2, therefore, he does not want to press those questions any further. 6. It is the submission of learned counsel for CBI that as many as 10 page’s cross-examination has been done on the question of false implication and as many as 8 pages have been consumed in the form of cross-examination on the question of recovery memo and, therefore, there is no necessity for granting further opportunity to the accused to cross-examine PW2. 7. Having perused the evidence of PW2, this Court agrees with the submission of learned counsel for CBI that much time and energy has been devoted and consumed on the cross-examination of PW2 on two vital aspects, namely, false implication and recovery memo and, therefore, there is no requirement for granting time to the accused to cross-examine PW2 on these two counts any further. 8. Learned counsel for the CBI pointed out that if there is little scope of further cross-examination of PW2, then the same can be on arrest memo only, although two pages have already been consumed on the same. 8. Learned counsel for the CBI pointed out that if there is little scope of further cross-examination of PW2, then the same can be on arrest memo only, although two pages have already been consumed on the same. Learned counsel for the revisionist, at this stage, submitted that the accused should be permitted to cross-examine PW2 on arrest memo only. It is also submitted that it will not take more than half an hour to cross-examine PW2. Such prayer is worth accepting. 9. Criminal revision is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 24.02.2016 is set aside only to the extent that an opportunity of cross-examining PW2 shall be granted to the accused only in respect of arrest memo and related questions, and on no other point. Needless to say that such cross-examination of PW2 shall be concluded by or on behalf of the accused without wasting much time of the court. [Stay application no. 754 of 2016 also stands disposed of.]