ORDER : 1. Petitioners have been charged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), in trial in Case No. 4/2 of 2011, titled as CBI Vs. Suraj Kant and others pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate-Special Judicial Magistrate for CBI, Shimla. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court, by way of present petition, being aggrieved by order dated 15.6.2019 passed by the trial Court, whereby an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of the accused persons to examine witness, i.e. concerned Clerk from the office of Superintending Engineer alongwith original record of the documents sought to be proved and exhibited by the petitioners/accused persons, has been rejected. 3. In the trial, after closing of evidence of prosecution on 30.6.2016, statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 24.12.2016. 4. On 4.5.2019, counsel for the petitioners had tendered in evidence original copy of Memorandum of Articles of Charge dated 27.6.2011 alongwith Annexures I to IV, certified copy of report of Departmental inquiry dated 25.11.2018 obtained under Right to Information Act, and Letter/Memorandum dated 31.1.2012, on behalf of accused Tilak Raj with request to grant of permission to prove these documents (Mark A to Mark C) in accordance with law. Statement of the counsel, to this effect, was recorded on that day and thereafter vide even dated order, time as prayed for moving appropriate application for further defence evidence was granted, as last opportunity and case was adjourned for 13.6.2019. 5. In furtherance to aforesaid order, petitioners preferred an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to summon Clerk of the Office of Superintending Engineer alongwith complete record, referred in the application pertaining to the Departmental Inquiry initiated against petitioners with respect to the misconduct for omissions/commission on the basis of which Criminal Case has been launched against the petitioner. 6. The application was opposed by respondent-CBI on the ground that it was filed to delay the trial and further that there was no reference of these documents in the statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and further that report of Departmental Inquiry was not relevant for adjudication of criminal proceedings and thus their production, exhibition and proof was not essential for just and fair decision of the case. 7. 7. Accepting the plea of respondent-CBI, learned Magistrate rejected the application of the petitioner, on the ground that Criminal Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by submitting final report in the Court on 5.1.2011, whereas Departmental Inquiry was initiated on 27.6.2011 and, therefore, outcome of Departmental Inquiry was not relevant to decide the criminal proceedings and thus proposed witness was not necessary and essential to be examined for proper adjudication of the case. 8. To substantiate the view taken by the trial Court, reliance has been placed on State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi (2012) 9 SCC 685 , wherein three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court has held as under:- “25. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the exoneration in the departmental proceeding ipso facto would not result in the quashing of the criminal prosecution. We hasten to add, however, that if the prosecution against an accused is solely based on a finding in a proceeding and that finding is set aside by the superior authority in the hierarchy, the very foundation goes and the prosecution may be quashed. But that principle will not apply in the case of the departmental proceeding as the criminal trial and the departmental proceeding are held by two different entities. Further, they are not in the same hierarchy.” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon pronouncement of the Supreme Court on Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EBW, CBI and another, (2020) 9 SCC 636 , to substantiate his claim that result of Departmental Inquiry shall have an impact on the criminal proceedings and on the basis of findings in the Departmental Inquiry, Criminal Proceedings can be closed and accused persons can be discharged from the offences. 10. Undisputedly, documents sought to be produced in the Court are related to Departmental Inquiry conducted regarding the omission and commission on the part of accused persons, resulting into commission of offence as alleged in Criminal Proceedings and these documents were placed on record in statement of Advocate representing the petitioner as Mark A to Mark C in evidence in defence, but could not be exhibited for want of original record. For that purpose, trial Court had granted time to file appropriate application vide order dated 4.5.2019. 11. For that purpose, trial Court had granted time to file appropriate application vide order dated 4.5.2019. 11. Admissibility, relevancy and evidentiary value of a piece of evidence are three different things, which are to be considered and decided at different levels, on the basis of nature of evidence, impact thereof and with respect to the issue involved in the proceedings. Whereas, evidentiary value is to be considered at the time of final adjudication of the case with reference to entire evidence on record. An accused cannot be deprived from leading evidence in defence by producing it in accordance with law which is related to the issue involved in the Criminal Proceedings, however, impact as well as evidentiary value thereof is to be considered at the time of final adjudication of Criminal Proceedings. 12. So far as pleas of respondent and findings returned by the trial Court, with respect to relevancy and effect of these documents on charges framed against the petitioners, are premature because relevancy of the documents and impact of contents thereof on the prosecution case in the trial is to be considered only after documents are exhibited and proved on record in accordance with law. Before that the documents cannot be looked into by the trial Court but it can be certainly considered, by looking into documents/evidence, that proposed evidence is related to and relevant to lis and for adjudication of the trial or not. 13. The documents sought to be placed on record are related to omissions and commissions of the petitioners, for which prosecution has been launched against them and have been tendered in evidence, but have not been exhibited for want of original record. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that rejection of application of the petitioners is not sustainable and, therefore, order dated 15.6.2019 is set aside and parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15th June, 2022 and petitioners are directed to take appropriate steps to summon the witness within one week thereafter and thereafter witness shall be summoned and examined on a date fixed by the trial Court. It is made clear that it would be responsibility of the petitioners to ensure summoning, service and presence of the witness alongwith original record on the date fixed by the trial Court. 14. It is made clear that it would be responsibility of the petitioners to ensure summoning, service and presence of the witness alongwith original record on the date fixed by the trial Court. 14. Before parting with the case, it would be necessary and relevant to observe that impact of the documents sought to be proved and exhibited in defence evidence for adjudication and deciding Criminal proceedings on merits shall be considered by the trial Court at the time of final adjudication of the trial on its merit in accordance with law, and any observation made by this Court in this order shall not have any impact thereon, as this Court has not considered and decided this issue on merits. 15. The petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations, so also pending applications, if any.