ORDER : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 17.4.2017, passed in R.C. Case No. 02(A)/2011(D) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, cum Special Judge, C.B.I. Dhanbad, whereby and where under applications preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for calling the service file of Smt. Shanti Devi from Block II Area, BCCL, Dhanbad and for calling arrears calculation chart and office copy of pay slip of Shanti Devi from 5.1.2009 to 18.1.2011 as also for issuance of summons to Shri Parmanand Pandey to be examined as a defence witness have been rejected. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the allegations made against the petitioner with respect to demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000/- for processing the regularization of service, promotional dues and other benefits, it was necessary for calling the service file of Shanti Devi as well as the arrear calculation chart and office copy of pay slip of Shanti Devi. It has further been submitted that petitioner has been greatly prejudiced on account of refusal of the court to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner. It has also been submitted that Parmanand Pandey, who was a bill clerk during the relevant point of time was also required to be examined for proving the calculation chart and copy of pay slip of Shanti Devi. Learned counsel submits that this Court in Cr. Revision No. 617 of 2017 had given a direction to the learned trial court to permit the defence to recall and re-examine the witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that only to arrive at a just decision of the case, it was absolutely necessary for the documents, which were prayed to be called for, be exhibited and there was no laches on the part of the petitioner or any effort to delay the disposal of the trial. Learned counsel submits that entire facts regarding payment made to Shanti Devi would have been disclosed by Parmanand Pandey and his examination as a defence witness was absolutely necessary to come to a just conclusion. 4. Learned counsel submits that entire facts regarding payment made to Shanti Devi would have been disclosed by Parmanand Pandey and his examination as a defence witness was absolutely necessary to come to a just conclusion. 4. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to the case of Kalyani Baskar (Mrs.) v. M.S. Sampoornam(Mrs.), reported in (2007) 2 SCC 258 , T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 633 and Selvi J. Jayalalitha v. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chennai, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 754 . 5. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel for the C.B.I., has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has stated that the applications preferred by the petitioner was only to delay the disposal of the trial. It has been submitted that petitioner is filing repeated petitions with separate prayers which leads credence to the facts that the petitioner wants to hamper the trial. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner was of demanding Rs. 2,000/- as illegal gratification and only to fill up the lacuna, repeated petitions are being filed. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order dated 17.4.2017 had rightly considered the tendency of the petitioner while rejecting both the applications. 6. The petitioner was charged with demanding of illegal gratification of Rs. 2,000/- in lieu of processing the regularization of service, promotional dues and transport allowance in respect of Smt. Shanti Devi who was working as a general mazdoor in Shatabadi OCP, Barora Area, BCCL, Dhanbad. Charge-sheet was submitted for the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and trial proceeded. During course of trial, an application was preferred under section 311 Cr.P.C. for examination of Shanti Devi as a prosecution witness, which was allowed by the learned trial court. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order preferred a revision being Cr. Revision No. 617 of 2016. Vide order dated 22.7.2016, the said application was disposed of with a liberty to the defence to recall only the necessary witnesses who have already been examined by the prosecution for cross examination after the examination and cross examination of Shanti Devi as the prosecution witness. Pursuant to the order passed in Cr. Revision No. 617 of 2016. Vide order dated 22.7.2016, the said application was disposed of with a liberty to the defence to recall only the necessary witnesses who have already been examined by the prosecution for cross examination after the examination and cross examination of Shanti Devi as the prosecution witness. Pursuant to the order passed in Cr. Revision No. 617 of 2016, an application was preferred by the defence for examination and cross examination of the Investigating Officer (P.W-10), which was allowed on 26.9.2016. Another application was filed subsequently for cross-examination of Nilam Shri, Inspector, A.C.B., C.B.I., which was also allowed by the learned trial court on 16.11.2016. The defence thereafter had filed two separate applications before the learned trial court. The first application was filed with a prayer for calling for the service records of Shanti Devi from Block II Area, BCCL, Dhanbad. Second application was for calling of the arrears calculation chart and office copy of pay slip of Shanti Devi from 5.1.2009 to 18.1.2011 and for summoning Shri Parmanand Pandey, who was a bill clerk during the relevant period of time. Vide order dated 17.4.2017, both the applications were rejected. After the prosecution evidence was closed, the case was fixed for defence evidence since 19.9.2016. The defence had produced two witnesses. The details regarding arrear payment of Shanti Devi have already been marked as exhibit by the defence and the concerned witness was also examined as the defence witness. Two witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the defence, were D.K. Bhattacharya and S.K. Mukhopadhyay. It appears that the defence had never filed a list of the witnesses, who are required to be examined and repeatedly applications are being filed in a piecemeal manner to examine the defence witness. Applications were filed on the date when the last witness was examined by the defence. The entire sequence of events would thus lead to a conclusion that the sole purpose of the petitioner is to delay the disposal of the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various judgments as indicated above, which relates to fair and proper opportunity to the accused to prove his innocence. 7. In the case of Selvi J. Jayalalitha (supra), an opportunity was given to the accused to examine the defence witnesses in the interest of justice. The facts situation of the present case speaks otherwise. 7. In the case of Selvi J. Jayalalitha (supra), an opportunity was given to the accused to examine the defence witnesses in the interest of justice. The facts situation of the present case speaks otherwise. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity by the learned trial court to examine defence witness but he never gave a list of defence witnesses he seeks to examine. 8. The only conclusion thus which could be arrived at is of the petitioner making an attempt to linger the trial indefinitely. Learned trial court by order dated 17.4.2017 has taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and had rightly refused to allow the application preferred by the petitioner. 9. There being no reasons to cause interference in the impugned order dated 17.4.2017, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed.