Judgment :

These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 14.7.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLRP No.126/2005 whereby and whereunder the respondent's Revisional Application from an order of the learned Special Judge dated 11.10.2004 in regard to examination of defence witnesses had been allowed in part.

The respondent herein was charged for commission of offences punishable under Section 120B read with 409 IPC,420 IPC and 13(2) read with 7,11 and 13(1) (c) & (d) of PC Act, 1988 and Section 409, 420 IPC Section 7,11 and 13(1)(C)& (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Examination of the prosecution witnesses before the Special Judge, admittedly, is over. The respondent has also been examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He produced a list of 63 defence witnesses. The learned Special Judge examined at some length as to whether the deposition of the said witnesses would be necessary and by reason of an order dated 11.10.2004 opined that six out of 63 witnesses cited on behalf of the defence should be allowed to be examined.

Some of these witnesses were directed to be examined through Video Conferencing. It was, furthermore, directed that the defence shall obtain willingness from the witnesses and also the dates which would be convenient to them for their examination on Video Conferencing. Aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied therewith the respondent filed an application for review of the said order. It was dismissed. An application under Article 277 of the Constitution of India was, thereafter, filed and by reason of a judgment and order dated 31.1.2005, it was opined that exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India would be inappropriate. It was observed that the remedy of the respondents, if any, for ventilating their grievances in relation to such order would be an appropriate application under Section 397 or 482 of the Cr.P.C.. Some other observations were also made in relation to other parts of the order impugned before it. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said observations, the respondent filed a Revisional Application before the High Court being No.126/2005. We may at this stage notice that in the writ proceedings the number of witnesses were brought down to 21 from 63 apart from those witnesses whose examination was allowed by the trial Court. The Revisional Court without entering into the merit of the matter and without dealing with the reasonings of the trial Judge has allowed the application stating :

"........Heard Counsel for the parties and have perused the order under challenge. It appears to me that in the matter which has such wide ramifications, as also a large number of witness have been examined from the side of the prosecution, full and complete opportunity ought to be given to the defence to lead its evidence. What each witness of the defence seeks to depose has been stated in the application which according to me justifies their examination. It is, therefore, fair to permit the defence to examine the 21witnesses, list whereof has been placed on record, in addition to the witness allowed by the trial Court....."

Submission made on behalf of the appellants before us is that having regard to the provisions of Sub-Section (2)of Section 243 Cr.P.C. as also Section 312 thereof, the Revisional Court ought not to have lightly interfered with the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the learned trial Judge.

Mr. Bhaskar P.Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.926 of 2006 submitted that the order of injunction passed against the respondent by this Court in its order dated 4.9.2006 should be made absolute.Mr. Harjinder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the defence was entitled to examine its witnesses. It was contended that the delay in disposal of the matter was not on account of the accu