JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri. Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri S.K. Yadav and Sri Raman Saxena. 2. The instant application assails the order dated 6 September 2019 passed by the Special Judge, (Anti Corruption), CBI, Court No. 3, Ghaziabad, in Special Case No. 02 of 2017 (State through CBI Versus Ashok Kumar Pathak) arising from Case Crime No. RC-1202017A0006, under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station ACB CBI, Ghaziabad, rejecting the application of the accused/applicant filed under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for recalling P.W.-1, Lieutenant General Suresh Sharma for cross examination. 3. The facts giving rise the present application is that Pawan Kumar Tiwari made a complaint before the Anti Corruption Branch C.B.I. Ghaziabad, alleging that applicant demanded illegal gratification for release of his payments for the works performed by him for Military Engineering Services. Pursuant to the complaint, F.I.R. came to be lodged on 10 April 2017. After investigation C.B.I. submitted charge sheet against the applicant, the Special Judge, Anti Corruption CBI Ghaziabad vide order dated 27.07.2027 took cognizance. 4. Applicant moved an application to recall P.W.-1 for the reason that during cross examination, inadvertently, it could not be clarified from P.W.-1 as to how sanction for prosecution under Section 19(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'Prevention of Corruption Act') was accorded, whereas, accused applicant is not a government servant. The court below rejected the application, inter alia, on the ground that P.W.-1 was cross examined by the defence, and with the aid of the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the applicant wants to fill up the lacuna and delay the proceedings. It is noted in the impugned order that during cross examination P.W.-1 categorically deposed that he was the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution of the applicant. 5. Para 22 of the impugned order is extracted:- “22. It is noted in the impugned order that during cross examination P.W.-1 categorically deposed that he was the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution of the applicant. 5. Para 22 of the impugned order is extracted:- “22. In the matter in hand, sanctioning authority categorically stated in his statement before this Court as PW1 which is reproduced herein below:- ^^v'kksd dqekj ikBd ,bZZ ,thbZ bZ@,e th0bZ ¼bZLV½ vkxjk Fks vkSj eSa bathfu;j bu phQ gksus ds ukrs mUgsa inP;qr djus ds fy, l{ke vf/kdkjh Fkk** The chief examination of PW-1 shows that he has stated himself competent to accord sanction and defence had sufficient opportunity to cross examine the witness on that point. So far as the question regarding application of mind is concerned, the cross examination of PW-1 dated 23.04.2018, shows that PW-1 was controverted on application of mind in granting prosecution sanction. It appears that all the questions which are proposed to be asked, were very much in the knowledge of learned counsel for defence and were asked. Defence had got sufficient opportunity for cross examination and no new fact took place during trail making re-examination of PW-1 necessary. The object of the provisions as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society. This power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with caution and circumspection. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judicially to prevent the failure of justice. Therefore, the reasons for exercising this power should be strong and genuine. The delay in filing the application is also one of the important factors which has to be taken into consideration. It is noticed that statement of PW-1 was recorded on 23.04.2018 and the application for recall of witness has been given on 14.05.2019 almost after one year without showing reasonable cause.” 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the counsel for the accused/applicant before the trial court could not cross examine P.W.-1 with regard to his competency to accord sanction for prosecuting the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the counsel for the accused/applicant before the trial court could not cross examine P.W.-1 with regard to his competency to accord sanction for prosecuting the applicant. It is further urged that the sanction order reflects that the sanction has been granted under Section 19(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act under which only Central Government is competent, therefore, the applications to recall P.W.-1 for clarification as to how P.W.-1 could sanction prosecution. It is contended that there is total non application of mind while according sanction which goes to the root of the matter and would vitiate the trial. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI opposes the application and submits that the sanction order has been placed on record, it clearly records that sanction was granted by Lt. General Suresh Sharma (P.W.-1) who is competent under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Further, during cross examination P.W.-1 clearly stated that he had sanctioned the prosecution. The purpose of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to delay the proceedings. In any case, the objection that is being raised by the learned counsel for the applicant can be raised before the trial court on the strength of the documentary evidence i.e. sanction order dated 30 June 2017. It is categorically noted in the sanction order that Sri Ashok Kumar Pathak AGE E/M (accused-applicant) in the office of Garrison Engineer (East) Agra, U.P., had demanded illegal gratification for the release of pending payment, accordingly, Lt. General Suresh Sharma E-in-C accorded sanction under Section 19(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the persecution of the accused applicant for the offence under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act and for any other offences. The relevant portion of the sanction order is extracted: “NOW THEREFORE, 1 Lt. Gen. Suresh Sharma, E-in-C, hereby accord sanction under section 19 (1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for the prosecution of the said Shri Ashok Kumar Pathak, the then AGE E/M, O/o Garrison Engineer (East) Agra, for the offences under Section 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in respect of the aforesaid acts and for any other offences made out from the aforesaid facts for taking cognizance of the said offences by a court of competent jurisdiction.” 8. Rival submissions fall for consideration. 9. Rival submissions fall for consideration. 9. The scope and object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to enable the court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining the proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of a case. Such power must be exercised, provided, that the evidence i.e. likely to be tendered by a witness, is germane to the issue involved. The power can be invoked by the court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons, and the same is an exercise with great caution and circumspection. Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been expressed in the widest possible terms by using the words such as, "any court", "at any stage", or "or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings". "any person" and “any such person”. The court must examine whether such additional evidence is necessary to facilitate a just and proper decision of the case. 10. Supreme Court in Natasha Singh Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, 2013 (5) SCC 741 , observed as follows in para 15 and 16: “15………………..An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the opposite party....The Power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great caution and circumspection.... There is thus no escape if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. The determinative factor should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case.” 16. Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure, and it is the duty of the court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner…….Thus, under no circumstances can a person’s right to fair trial be jeopardized. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. Denial of such right would amount to the denial of a fair trial. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. Denial of such right would amount to the denial of a fair trial. (Vide: Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar and another, AIR 1958 SC 376 Zahira Habibulla H. Shekh v. State of Gutajar, AIR 2004 SC 3114 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2006 SC 1367 Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam, (2007) 2 SCC 258 Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P., (2011) 8 SCC 136 and Sudevanand v. State. (2012) 3 SCC 387 )” 11. In Natasha Singh, the appellant had furnished an application stating that he wished to examine the witness of panchnama, who the prosecution had neither listed nor examined in court. The second person sought to be examined was Company Secretary of the appellant as he was the best person to provide greater details of the company of which the appellant is the Director. The third witness, a hand-writing expert, was required to be examined regarding the correctness of the signatures. The Court held that the witnesses desired to be examined were necessary for just decision of the case. The Court cannot prejudge the relevance of the witness. 12. In Manju Devi Versus State of Rajasthan and another, (2019) 6 SCC 203 an application was moved to examine the doctor who conducted the first post mortem of the dead body of the deceased in Nigeria. The reason assigned for summoning and examining the doctor was that the Medical Board constituted in India found that no definite opinion could be given regarding the time and cause of death. The doctor at Nigeria was not cited as a witness the prosecution. The Apex Court was of the opinion that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was wrongly rejected on the ground that the post mortem report was available on record and that would suffice. The Court opined that the examination of the Nigerian doctor is germane to the questions involved in the matter for a just decision of the case. 13. In the given facts of the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the document according sanction is available on record. The author of the sanction order is P.W.-1 the competent authority. The authority was examined. In his cross examination, he has clearly stated that he had sanctioned the prosecution of the applicant. 14. 13. In the given facts of the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the document according sanction is available on record. The author of the sanction order is P.W.-1 the competent authority. The authority was examined. In his cross examination, he has clearly stated that he had sanctioned the prosecution of the applicant. 14. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, submits that the sanction has been granted under Section 19(1)(a), whereas, applicant is not a government servant. It is, therefore, urged that there is total non application of mind while according sanction. It is sought to be contended that since the sanction has been granted under a wrong provision, therefore, PW-1 needs to be re-examined to clarify as to how sanction could have been granted under Section 19(1)(a) applicable to employees of the Central Government. On specific query, learned counsel submits that sanction could have been accorded under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 15. Section 19(1)(c) provides that in case of a person who is not employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of the State the sanction for prosecution can be granted by the authority competent to remove him from office. Clause (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 19 reads thus: “(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction:- (a)…………….. (b)…………….. (c) In the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.” 16. On being confronted with the provision, learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute that P.W.-1 is competent to accord sanction under Clause (c) of Section 19(1), however, submits that the witness is sought to be recalled to clarify whether there was application of mind while sanctioning the prosecution under Section 19(1)(a) instead of 19(1) (c). 17. The sanction order clearly records that Lt. Gen. Suresh Sharma (P.W.-1) is competent and has sanctioned the prosecution of the applicant. Further, in cross examination he has categorically stated that he has sanctioned the prosecution. Merely mentioning the wrong provision of Prevention of Corruption Act in the sanction order would not vitiate the sanction and the trial pursuant thereof. 18. The sanction order clearly records that Lt. Gen. Suresh Sharma (P.W.-1) is competent and has sanctioned the prosecution of the applicant. Further, in cross examination he has categorically stated that he has sanctioned the prosecution. Merely mentioning the wrong provision of Prevention of Corruption Act in the sanction order would not vitiate the sanction and the trial pursuant thereof. 18. It is not in dispute that sanction has been granted by the competent authority and is referable to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, though, inadvertently mentioning Sub-Section (1)(a), instead under Sub-Section (1) (c) of Section 19. It is settled proposition of law that mere mentioning the wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision in the order would not vitiate the order or proceedings initiated pursuant thereof. The relevant consideration is that the authority passing the order under the Act is competent and the exercise of the power is traceable to the relevant provision. 19. In Peerless General Finance Ltd. And Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India, (1992) 2 SCC 343 : AIR 1992 SC 1033 , the Supreme Court observed as under: “It is settled law that so long as the power is traceable to the statute mere omission to recite the provision does not denude the power of the legislature or rule making authority to make the regulations, nor considered without authority of law….” 20. In Ram Sunder Ram v. Union of India and others, 2007 (9) SCALE 197 it was held: ".....It appears that the competent authority has wrongly quoted Section 20 in the order of discharge whereas, in fact, the order of discharge has to be read having been passed under Section 22 of the Army Act. It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available in law." (Refer-N. Mani v. Sangeetha Theatres and others (2004) 12 SCC 278 , High Court Of Gujarat vs Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat, 2003 (4) SCC 712 and P.K. Palanisamy vs N.Arumugham (2009) 9 SCC 173 ) 21. The court below was justified in rejecting the application for the reason that the witness sought to be recalled was not essential to arrive at a just decision of the case. The issue of ‘non application of mind’ by the sanctioning authority is not germane to the issue involved. It is not being disputed by the applicant that PW-1 is not the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution and applicant is not a government servant. The sanction is referable to Section 19, however, inadvertently sanctioned under Clause (a), instead of Clause (c) of Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act. No further clarification is required to be thrown upon the sanction order by PW-1 in the backdrop of his deposition that he is competent and had accorded the sanction to prosecute the applicant. 22. Learned counsel for the applicant failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 23. The application being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.