ORDER : 1. The present petition has been preferred invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), laying challenge to the order dated 26.04.2022, passed by learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), whereby petitioner’s application dated 22.04.2022 under Section 311 of the Code has been rejected. 2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are that the petitioner is being tried for the offences under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. During the course of the trial, the petitioner moved an application dated 22.04.2022 under Section 311 of the Code and prayed that witnesses, PW-2-SK Singh (the authority who had granted prosecution sanction); PW-17-Mukesh Bansal (the Investigating Officer) and PW-13-Rajendra Singh (Voice Sample Analyst) be recalled. 4. The trial Court rejected petitioner's application per viam its order dated 26.04.2022, inter alia, holding that the application in question has been filed with a view to protract the proceedings and there is no requirement of recalling the witnesses. 5. Mr. Jain, learned Senior Advocate having apprised the Court about the relevant facts submitted that the statement of PW-2-SK Singh (who has granted prosecution sanction) was recorded on 05.10.2016 and certain questions were posed to him by the petitioner’s counsel according to the facts and material available at the relevant time. 6. He informed that on 09.01.2019, the petitioner moved an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RTI Act’), whereupon, many documents were provided to him including the note-sheet dated 28.09.2015. On perusal of those documents, petitioner realised that evidence led by above referred prosecution witnesses was not complete/correct and some questions, particularly, those in relation to the documents subsequently supplied under RTI were not put to the witnesses. 7. During the course of submission, learned Senior Counsel invited Court’s attention towards a note-sheet dated 28.09.2015, that has been reproduced in the impugned order of the trial Court and highlighted that the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority had categorically observed in the note-sheet that on 28.09.2015, when the Investigating Officer had approached him eliciting prosecution sanction, he had clearly stated that copies and documents enclosed with the letter of SP, CBI were provided to DGIT (Vigilance), New Delhi and if required, he can produce these documents and statements for his perusal. 8. 8. Having underscored this part of the note-sheet, learned Senior Counsel argued that it is apparent that at the time of grant of prosecution sanction, the relevant documents were not available with the PW-2 (authority granting prosecution sanction) and therefore, the petitioner wants to confront such witnesses in relation to such information and pose other relevant questions germane for petitioner’s defence. Identical submissions were made for PW-17 (the Investigating Officer) as well. However, petition qua PW-13-Rajendra Singh was not pressed. 9. Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent-CBI vehemently opposed petitioner’s prayer and contended that the application under consideration was filed by the petitioner simply with a view to buy time or prolong the proceedings. 10. He navigated the Court through the statements and cross-examination of PW-2 and submitted that all sorts of questions including availability of the documents while issuing prosecution sanction order on 28.09.2015 had already been put to such witnesses. 11. While inviting Court’s attention towards the note-sheet dated 28.09.2015, learned Senior Advocate argued that the petitioner has chosen to read part of the note-sheet which suits his cause, else the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority had clearly recorded that on his request, the Investigating Officer had produced copies of the relevant documents, which were perused by him before issuing sanction to prosecute the petitioner. 12. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the fact that the subject application was filed simply with a view to stall the proceedings is evident from the series of events-statement of PW-2 was recorded way back on 05.10.2016 whereas the application under Section 311 of the Code came to be filed on 22.04.2022, regardless of the fact that the documents under RTI Act were supplied to the petitioner on 09.01.2019. 13. Learned Senior Advocate argued that if the petitioner was really serious regarding his purported rights, he ought to have moved the application immediately on receiving the information under RTI Act (in the month of January, 2019). 14. Mr. Jain, learned Senior Counsel rejoined the arguments in a bid to explain the purported delay and informed that the petitioner had filed another petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, laying challenge to the order passed by the trial Court on 06.09.2019 (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.6004/2019), in which the proceedings of the trial Court were stayed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. Petition No.6004/2019), in which the proceedings of the trial Court were stayed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. When petition came to be partly allowed by this Court on 12.11.2021, the proceedings of the trial Court came to be resumed. He submitted that in the backdrop of these facts, the petitioner's application under Section 311 of the Code, which was filed on 22.04.2022, cannot be held to be belated. 15. Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned Senior Advocate, at this juncture, submitted that interim order (in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.6004/2019) was granted by this Court on 20.02.2020, hence, the petitioner ought to have filed the application at least before the grant of interim order by this Court on 20.02.2020, because he was already possessed of all the documents in January, 2019. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including a copy of the note-sheet dated 28.09.2015 and statement of PW-2 which have been produced by Dr. Sachin Acharya for perusal of the Court. 17. Firstly, dealing with the contention of the respondent that the application in hand is belated, this Court is of the view that in the given factual matrix, the petitioner cannot be non suited on the ground of delay. Ideally, the petitioner who is implicated for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act ought to have filed the application immediately given the fact that the documents under RTI were provided to him on 09.01.2019. But then, considering that the petitioner had been pursuing his other application(s) which were pending before the trial Court and that corresponding order passed by the trial Court on 06.09.2019 was challenged by way of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.6004/2019 and an interim order came to be passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 20.01.2020, whereby the proceedings of the trial Court were kept in abeyance, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner’s application cannot be rejected finding the petitioner to be guilty of adopting dilly dallying tactics. 18. True it is, that the application could have been filed at an earlier point of time soon after November 2021, when petitioner’s earlier petition came to be allowed but in any case the petitioner had moved the application on 22.04.2022 within 5 months. 19. 18. True it is, that the application could have been filed at an earlier point of time soon after November 2021, when petitioner’s earlier petition came to be allowed but in any case the petitioner had moved the application on 22.04.2022 within 5 months. 19. In the facts and circumstances of the case noticed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner’s application deserved disposal on merit rather than having its burial on the ground of delay. The Court should avoid rejection on technical ground if application of an accused otherwise merits acceptance. 20. Perusal of the order impugned passed by the trial Court shows that the Court had rejected petitioner's application while making observation that the petitioner has tried to protract the proceedings. In the opinion of this Court, the reason ascribed by the trial Court cannot be sustained. 21. The trial Court was required to examine the contention of the petitioner holistically and not be influenced by the considerations which were not germane to the application filed by the petitioner. 22. Moving on to merits of the application, this Court finds that in his statement and cross-examination, PW-2 had taken a specific stance that he had perused all the documents on 28.09.2015, before granting prosecution sanction, however, the note-sheet dated 28.09.2015, indicates otherwise-when the Investigating Officer approached the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority on 28.09.2015, he clearly stated that certain documents were lying with the DGIT (Vigilance) at New Delhi and if required, he could produce the same. 23. Such stipulation in the note-sheet dated 28.09.2015 raises a suspiscion as to whether the documents (letter of SP, CBI and its enclosures) as a matter of fact were made available to the PW-2 (SK Singh), when he issued the prosecution sanction in question. 24. True it is, that in the latter part of the proceedings on 28.09.2015, said SK Singh has observed that the copies of those documents were made available but then, the note-sheet creates a doubt as to whether the documents were really produced before him or not because the prosecution sanction was issued on 28.09.2015 itself-no sooner had the Investigating Officer approached him in this regard. 25. In absence of copy of the note-sheet dated 28.09.2015, the relevant and pertinent questions which have necessary bearing on the trial of the case, could obviously, be not put to the concerned witnesses. 26. 25. In absence of copy of the note-sheet dated 28.09.2015, the relevant and pertinent questions which have necessary bearing on the trial of the case, could obviously, be not put to the concerned witnesses. 26. Without observing anything on the truthfulness or the veracity of the testimony of the PW-2 and PW-17, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice warrants that the petitioner be permitted to put questions relevant to the note-sheet dated 28.09.2015 to SK Singh (PW2) and the Investigating Officer(PW17). 27. The petition is, therefore, allowed, as indicated above. 28. The impugned order dated 26.04.2022, passed by the trial Court is quashed and set aside and petitioner’s application dated 22.04.2022 under Section 311 of the Code is partly allowed in the manner that the trial Court would issue requisite precept/summons to PW-2 (SK Singh) and PW-17 (Mukesh Bansal) to appear on the date fixed by it. 29. On appearance of such witnesses in the witness-box, the petitioner will be allowed to put questions relevant to the note-sheet dated 28.09.2015 and grant of prosecution sanction including confrontation with the documents, if required. 30. The petitioner will not be allowed to ask any question other than the questions emanating from the documents which have been provided to him under the Right to Information Act in the year 2019. 31. The findings recorded and the observation made in the order instant be read in the context of adjudication of the application under consideration. The trial Court shall be free to take its independent view of oral and ocular evidence without feeling bound or being influenced by the same. 32. The stay petition stands disposed of accordingly.