JUDGMENT :

SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the two orders passed by the CBI Special Court, Greater Mumbai in CBI Special Case No. 52/2016. These impugned orders were passed on Exhibit-99 dated 24.11.2022 and on Exhibit-100 dated 2.12.2022.

2. The brief history leading to filing of this petition is as follows:

The petitioners herein are the common accused in two special cases i.e. Special Case No. 52/2016 and Special Case No. 124/2015. Both the cases are being tried before the same Court. Special Case No. 124/2015 was in respect of the offences of fraud and misappropriation as also under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; whereas Special Case No. 52/2016 involves the offence under section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The subject matter of both these impugned orders are the facts related to Special Case No. 52/2016.

4. In Special Case No. 52/2016, the prosecution opened their evidence by examining the Sanctioning Authority R. Ramamurthy as PW-1. In paragraph-2 he has referred to a proposal from CBI. He deposed that after having gone through the documents he found that it was alleged that the petitioner Vijaya had committed misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs. 3.65 Crores and there was a wrongful loss to the Oriental Insurance Company. According to him, he had applied mind and came to the conclusion that it was a fit case for proceeding further. Then he accorded the sanction on 15.9.2016 in his capacity as the Sanctioning Authority as he was Deputy General Manager of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The sanction order dated 15.9.2016 was produced on record of Special Case No. 52/2016 at Exhibit-25.

5. Exhibit-25 mentions that between the period 1.1.2012 to 27.2.2015 Smt. Vijaya working as Assistant Manager in the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. had acquired immovable and movable assets to the tune of Rs. 1,36,77,840/- in her name and in the names of her family members. After deduction of acceptable expenditure the disproportionate assets were to the tune of Rs. 74,10,566/-.

Thus, the recitals in the sanction order refers to the case involving disproportionate assets which was the subject matter of Special Case No. 52/2016. However, the examination-in-chief of PW-1 referred to the misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs. 3.65 Crores that obviously was the separate subject matter pertaining to Special Case No. 124/2015. Thus, there was mismatch between the deposition and the sanction order which he had produced. The deposition was in respect of another sanction which he had accorded for misappropriation of Rs. 3.65 Crores which was the subject matter of Special Case No. 124/2015. The prosecution realized this discrepancy after the evidence-close purshis was given.

6. The prosecution, therefore, filed an application vide Exhibit-98 for recalling the sanctioning authority PW-1 R. Ramamurthy. It was mentioned in the application dated 22.11.2022 in Exhibit-98 that in Special Case No. 52/2016 during examination of the sanctioning authority he proved the sanction given by him but the facts disclosed by him were related to other case i.e. Special Case No. 124/2015. For that purpose, to clear that fact, a prayer was made for recalling of the sanctioning authority.

7. This application was opposed by the accused.

8. On 24.11.2022, the prosecution preferred another application vide Exhibit-99 for withdrawing Exhibit-98 with liberty to file fresh application. It was mentioned in the application that the prosecution wanted to modify the application for recalling of the witness.

9. Learned Special Judge for CBI vide his order dated 24.11.2022 permitted the prosecution to withdraw application at Exhibit-98 with liberty to file appropriate application in accordance with law.

10. After that, the prosecution preferred fresh application on 24.11.2022 for recalling of the witness. In this application at Exhibit-100, slightly important elaborate averments w