Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 261 (JHR)

Rajesh Gandhi v. Union Of India Through C B I

2020-02-10

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-C.B.I. 3. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - ''That in the instant application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 1.8.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge VIII cum Spl. Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 02(A)/1996(D), whereby and whereunder the learned court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the Investigating Officer for further cross- examination, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge VIII cum Spl. Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad.'' 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a petition was filed before the learned court below under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner to recall the investigating officer of the case for putting certain questions. He further submits that on the day when the investigating officer had appeared before the learned court below, the petitioner was not physically present in the Court and the investigating officer was examined by the defence counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the queries which were required to be put to the investigating officer was mentioned in the petition itself and those are germane to come to the truth of the matter. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- C.B.I., on the other hand, submits that the case was registered as back as in the year 1996 and the learned court below has passed the impugned order after considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The learned court below has also recorded that the accused/petitioner was represented through his counsel and thoroughly examined the investigating officer at length. The learned counsel also submits that before the learned court below, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner failed to answer to query as to what wrong statement was made by the investigating officer before the Court as it was so stated in the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 6. The learned counsel also submits that before the learned court below, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner failed to answer to query as to what wrong statement was made by the investigating officer before the Court as it was so stated in the petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered view that the Investigating Officer had duly appeared for his examination before the learned trial court and the defene counsel of the petitioner had cross examined him thoroughly as is apparent from the impugned order and this fact is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. This court further finds that the petition which was filed before the court below does not even disclose as to why the petitioner was personally not present on the date when the Investigating Officer appeared for his examination and there is no dispute that the counsel for the petitioner had duly cross examined him. Accordingly, this court does not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed. 7. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed as not pressed. 8. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.