Bombay High Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation, Acb, ... vs B.N. Lahiri, Sleeper Passing Officer, ... on 23 April, 2019
Author: M. G. Giratkar
Bench: M. G. Giratkar
1 jg.revn 81.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Criminal Revision Application No. 81 of 2019
Central Bureau of Investigation,
ACB, 3rd Floor, Block-C, C.G.O.
Complex, Seminary Hills, Nagpur. .... Appellant/
Applicant
- Versus -
Shri B. N. Lahiri, Sleeper Passing
Officer, S.E. Rly, Calcutta (Since
expired)
(1) Shri Jagdish C. Chawla, PWI,
I/c Track Depot, North Railway
Shahadara, New Delhi (Retd.)
R/o B-213/B, Derawal Nagar,
Delhi
(2) Shri A. P. Mishra, then Managing
Director of Gujrat State Forest
Development Corporation (Retd.)
[Private],
R/o Flat No. 4, Kadambari
Apartment, 73 Samanth Nagar
Society, Chikuwadi, Varodara
(3) Shri Manilal Patel, Proprietor,
M/s Vizag Sleeper Syndicate,
R/o Raipur [Private], R/o C/o Shri
Bajrang Timber, New Timber
Market, Raipur. .... Non-Applicants
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. M. R. Chandurkar, Advocate for the appellant/applicant
Shri N. R. Kanungo, Advocate for the non-applicant nos. 2 and 3
None for the non-applicant no. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M. G. GIRATKAR, J.
DATE : 23/04/2019
::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2019 05:41:40 :::
2 jg.revn 81.19.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel Mrs. Chandurkar for the applicant and Shri Kanungo, learned counsel for the non-applicant nos. 2 and 3. None appears for the non-applicant no. 1.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The present revision is against the order dated 24-9-2018 passed below Exhibit 198 in Special (CBI) Case No. 02/2003 by Special Judge, Gondia. The prosecution wanted to examine witnesses Shri R. K. Sarkar, Shri Jagdishkumar Singhla, Shri R. K. Bangia, Shri Pushparaj Singh, Shri Chunnilal and Shri Dharmesh Shah. Therefore, application, Exhibit 198 was filed.
4. Learned counsel Mrs. Chandurkar for the applicant has submitted that witnesses named in the application, Exhibit 198 are the material witnesses of CBI. Therefore, prosecution applied as per Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) before the trial Court to examine the witnesses. Learned counsel has submitted that permission be given to the CBI to examine the witnesses as stated in the application, Exhibit 198, by allowing the present revision. Learned counsel has pointed out statements of witnesses recorded by CBI under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and submitted that they are material witnesses for the ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2019 05:41:40 ::: 3 jg.revn 81.19.odt prosecution.
5. Learned counsel Shri Kanungo appearing for the non- applicant nos. 2 and 3 strongly objected the application and submitted that the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia is perfectly legal and correct.
6. Perused the impugned order. From the perusal of impugned order, it appears that special case is pending before the Special Court, Gondia from the year 2003. There are directions from the Head of the Judicial Institutions to the trial Courts to dispose of old matters, more particularly which are pending for 5 and 10 years within a stipulated period. If the matters are not disposed of, then trial Court shall have to give explanation. This fact is also mentioned by the Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order. It appears from the order that 12 witnesses are examined by the CBI. On 29-1-2016, the application, Exhibit 148 was moved under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for grant of permission to examine the prosecution witnesses which was allowed only to the extent of examining witnesses Shamshersingh and Atul Hajela. Accordingly, the prosecution has examined Shamshersingh on 9-6-2016 who has made part investigation. In application, Exhibit 148, name of witness Jagdish Singhla was also mentioned and he was not allowed to ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2019 05:41:40 ::: 4 jg.revn 81.19.odt examine.
7. In the application, Exhibit 198, name of Jagdish Singhla is also mentioned. It is pertinent to note that while passing order on application, Exhibit 148, permission is not granted to examine witness Jagdish Singhla and that order was not challenged. Therefore, again prosecution cannot say that permission be granted to examine Jagdish Singhla. From the perusal of impugned order, 12 witnesses are examined by the prosecution. The case is pending before the trial Court for more than 10 years. As per the directions of High Court, trial Courts are expected to dispose of old matters on priority. Now, the case is fixed for statements of accused. Prosecution was at liberty to mention the name of all the witnesses while filing application, Exhibit 148. Said application was disposed of and as per the order, two witnesses were allowed to be examined. Prosecution again and again cannot seek permission from the Court to grant permission under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. Learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly rejected the application. There is no merit in the revision, hence, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Stay granted by this Court is vacated.
JUDGE wasnik ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2019 05:41:40 :::