ORDER : 1. Crl.R.P.No.1178/2025 has been filed challenging order dated 21.10.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.262/2025 in C.C.No.05/2012 pending before the Special Court,(CBI)-I, Ernakulam. 2. Order dated 21.10.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.263/2025 in C.C.No.06/2012 on the files of the Special Court, (CBI)-I, Ernakulam, is under challenge in Crl.R.P.No.1180/2025. 3. Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the revision petitioner - CBI as well as the respondents in both these cases. 4. Precisely telling, the orders impugned were passed by the learned Special Judge when the CBI filed separate petitions in the above cases under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.P.C.' hereinafter) to re-open the evidence and to examine additional witnesses viz., 1) Sri.K.P.Peter, 2) Sri.P.K.Kunhan 3) Sri.Hari and 4) Sri.Noushad, to prove certain points. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the examination of Sri K.P.Peter is necessary to prove the collection of specimen signatures of the 2 nd accused for the purpose of obtaining expert opinion. Similarly, the examination of Sri P.K. Kunhan is necessary to identify the signatures of the 2 nd accused, which were also collected for obtaining expert opinion after comparing the documents seized with his handwriting and admitted signatures. Similarly, Sri.Hari, the Manager, and Sri.Noushad, the Salesman of M/s.Titan One, Makkah Tower, Manjeri, are also required to be examined to prove that two Titan watches were accepted by the 2 nd accused as illegal gratification from the 4 th accused, and that the same were purchased by accused Nos. 3 and 4. 5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor read out the reasons pointed out by the learned Special Judge for dismissing the petitions, as stated in paragraph Nos.9 to 12 and contended that the reasons stated by the learned Special Judge with immense experience are not at all justifiable and therefore, the irrational and illegal orders would not sustain in the eye of law. The reasons stated in paragraph Nos. 9 to 12 are reproduced as under: “9. This petition is filed to summon additional witnesses shown in the list submitted along with the petition. The case is of the year 2012. The Hon'ble High Court as per order dated 19.08.2025 in Cil.R.P. No.18/2022 has directed this court to expedite the trial and finish the same at the earliest, at any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The case is of the year 2012. The Hon'ble High Court as per order dated 19.08.2025 in Cil.R.P. No.18/2022 has directed this court to expedite the trial and finish the same at the earliest, at any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The copy of the order was received in this court on 09.09.2025. So, the time limit expires by 09.12.2025. 10. On getting the direction from the Hon'ble High Court, this court heard both sides and charge was framed on 15.09.2025 and the case was posted for scheduling the case for trial to 23.09.2025. On that day, after hearing both sides, the case was scheduled for examination of witnesses from 14.10.2025 to 17.10.2025. So far, PW1 to 12 examined and Ext.P1 to 45 marked. As per the present schedule, 10 more witnesses are to be examined in this case. Examination of that witnesses is proposed to be scheduled from 11.11.2025 to 14.11.2025. 11. This court is engaged in trial of SC 2/2021 (Edakkara Maoist case) in which 15 accused are in remand and the first 10 days of every month is set-apart to that case. The trial of SC 1/2020 (Pantheerankavu Maoist case) wherein in 2 accused are in remand for long time is also in progress and 144 witnesses are examined on the side of the prosecution. 10 days are to be set apart to that case every month. Trial of 7 other cases of the CBI are also in progress and time to be allotted to that cases also every month. So, the time available for disposal of this case is very limited. This case was scheduled for trial after consulting the counsel for the accused and the Prosecutor. 12. Now, the Prosecutor wants to summon additional witnesses. The case is of the year 2012. Trial of 4 connected cases already conducted by my predecessor in office. Since this is a time limit case, for reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, entertaining petitions after petitions will only delay the disposal of the case.” 6. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the reasons stated in the above paragraphs are quite insufficient to dismiss the petitions and no legal grounds were stated by the learned Special Judge while dismissing the same. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the reasons stated in the above paragraphs are quite insufficient to dismiss the petitions and no legal grounds were stated by the learned Special Judge while dismissing the same. Therefore, the orders would require interference to facilitate examination of the four additional witnesses to prove the prosecution case and for the just decision of the case. 7. As regards the examination of Sri.Hari and Sri.Noushad, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the examination of these witnesses is unnecessary, since the owner of the shop has already been examined. They did not specifically oppose examination of other witnesses. The learned counsel further submitted that, if these petitions are allowed, reasonable time may be granted by extending the time limit fixed as 09.12.2025. 8. On a perusal of the reasons assigned by the learned Special Judge for dismissing the petitions, it appears that, in a nutshell, the dismissal was based on the court’s engagement in the trial of other time-bound cases involving accused persons in custody, as well as the direction of this Court to conclude the present trial on or before 09.12.2025. In fact, when genuine petitions under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. or under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS ’ hereinafter) would be filed either by the prosecution or by the accused, then the courts have a duty to address as to whether the evidence sought to be adduced by examining additional witnesses or by recalling and re-examining the witnesses already examined is necessary and while adverting to the said exercise, the prime point to be considered is; whether the examination of such witnesses is essential to the just decision of the case and not on the order of time bound disposal or consideration of other cases by the court. By doing the said exercise, if the court is convinced from the averments in the petition, along with the arguments, that examination of such witnesses is essential to the just decision of the case and to do justice between the parties, then time constraints arising out of the time limit fixed by the higher courts or engagement in other cases would not stand in the way of doing such exercise. At the same time, when the Courts find that examination of such witnesses is not necessary to the just decision of the case, this petition would be dismissed, narrating the reasons thereof. Thus, while considering petitions under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., or under Section 348 of the , the Courts should advert as to whether the examination of witnesses is essential to the just decision of the case and to meet the ends of justice, and not to time constraints or directions for time-bound disposal or engagement in other cases to cite the same are reasons to dismiss the petitions. 9. Keeping the above legal position in mind, when reading the orders impugned, it is decipherable that the orders impugned never addressed this legal aspect and without any legal reasons, the petitions for examination of additional witnesses have been dismissed. While adverting to the orders impugned, it could be noticed that the prosecution wanted to examine four witnesses to prove special points through them, who were also signatories to the contemporaneous records and mahazars. Even the respondents have also not raised any serious challenge to the prosecution demand. It is true that the learned counsel for the respondents opposed examination of Sri.Hari and Sri.Noushad on the submission that the owner of Makkah Tower, Manjeri, was already examined. But, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the owner given evidence that these witnesses would only know the said aspect. In fact, the reasons urged by the learned Special Public Prosecutor while passing the impugned orders, not within the sweep of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. or under Section 348 of the BNSS . It is observed that the reasons to be addressed by the learned Special Judge should be with a view to find out whether the examination of the additional witnesses or recalling or re- examining of the witnesses already examined are necessary to the just decision of the case. Here, no such reasons recorded by the Special Court. Therefore, the orders impugned without support of any legal reasons, as discussed, are liable to be set aside. When Courts feel that time bound disposal of the cases would be difficult by allowing absolutely genuine petitions and allowing further evidence, then the courts should ask for extension of time, narrating the reasons. 10. Therefore, the orders impugned without support of any legal reasons, as discussed, are liable to be set aside. When Courts feel that time bound disposal of the cases would be difficult by allowing absolutely genuine petitions and allowing further evidence, then the courts should ask for extension of time, narrating the reasons. 10. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside, and the respective petitions filed by the prosecution to summon the additional four witnesses sought to be examined, are allowed with direction to the Special Court to issue summons to the additional witnesses and to examine them, as per law. Since this Court had issued a direction in Crl.R.P.No.18/2022 to expedite the trial and conclude the same on 09.12.2025, it is noted that, owing to the examination of additional witnesses, the time limit fixed as 09.12.2025 could not be complied with. 11. In the interest of justice, the time for disposal of C.C. No.05/2012 and C.C.No.06/2012 involved in these revision petitions, is extended till 31.01.2026. The revision petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Special Court, forthwith.