Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
S.B. Criminal Misc.Petition Under ... vs . Sita Ram Meena Whereby, Application ... on 28 October, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.3339/2014. Central Bureau of Investigation through PP Vs. Sita Ram Meena S.B. CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/05/2014 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI CASES, SR.NO.5, JAIPUR IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.37/2014 (41/2008) CBI VS. SITA RAM MEENA WHEREBY, APPLICATION FILED BY THE CBI UNDER SECTION 311 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR CALLING THE PROSECUTION WITNESS DR.RAJINDER SINGH, PRINCIPAL SCIENTIFIC OFFICER, CFSL, NEW DELHI HAS BEEN REJECTED.
Date of order : October 28, 2014. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA Shri Tej Prakash Sharma for petitioner-CBI. ****** BY THE COURT:-
This criminal misc.petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 19/05/2014 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Sr.No.5, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.37/2014 (41/2008) CBI Vs. Sita Ram Meena whereby, the application filed by the C.B.I. u/S.311 Cr.P.C. for calling the prosecution witness - Dr.Rajinder Singh, Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL, New Delhi has been rejected.
2) The short facts of the case are that a complaint has been lodged by the C.B.I. for demand of bribe money and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. After closing of the prosecution evidence as micro cassette was submitted, report of the same has also not been presented and to prove, the CBI has submitted an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which has been declined by the court below. Hence, this petition.
3) The contention of the counsel for the CBI is that power to summon a material witness is inherent u/S.311 Cr.P.C. and at any stage of the trial, powers could be exercised, which are essential to just decision of the case.
4) Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
5) The perusal of the impugned-order goes to show that earlier on 07/12/2013, the same application was moved, which was declined and even the report has not been admitted on record. Then again, the same application at the behest of the CBI is totally unwarranted and unacceptable. When the concerned report, which has been signed by the witness is not the part of the record, to call the witness would be a futile exercise. Against the order dated 07/12/2013, no remedy has been availed by the CBI and court below has categorically observed that prosecution evidence has been closed on 14/02/2013 and even the arguments have been started. Thereafter, without any reason, the application has been submitted. After nine years, the CBI wants to place the document on record, which has been rejected and when the document has not been admitted, court below was justified in not calling witness Dr.Rajinder Singh.
Hence, this petition u/S.482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of any merit and it is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed as such.
(NISHA GUPTA), J.
Anil/174 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
anil goyalSr.PA-cum-J