ORDER :

1. The present petition has been preferred invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), laying challenge to the order dated 26.04.2022, passed by learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), whereby petitioner’s application dated 22.04.2022 under Section 311 of the Code has been rejected.

2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are that the petitioner is being tried for the offences under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. During the course of the trial, the petitioner moved an application dated 22.04.2022 under Section 311 of the Code and prayed that witnesses, PW-2-SK Singh (the authority who had granted prosecution sanction); PW-17-Mukesh Bansal (the Investigating Officer) and PW-13-Rajendra Singh (Voice Sample Analyst) be recalled.

4. The trial Court rejected petitioner's application per viam its order dated 26.04.2022, inter alia, holding that the application in question has been filed with a view to protract the proceedings and there is no requirement of recalling the witnesses.

5. Mr. Jain, learned Senior Advocate having apprised the Court about the relevant facts submitted that the statement of PW-2-SK Singh (who has granted prosecution sanction) was recorded on 05.10.2016 and certain questions were posed to him by the petitioner’s counsel according to the facts and material available at the relevant time.

6. He informed that on 09.01.2019, the petitioner moved an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RTI Act’), whereupon, many documents were provided to him including the note-sheet dated 28.09.2015. On perusal of those documents, petitioner realised that evidence led by above referred prosecution witnesses was not complete/correct and some questions, particularly, those in relation to the documents subsequently supplied under RTI were not put to the witnesses.

7. During the course of submission, learned Senior Counsel invited Court’s attention towards a note-sheet dated 28.09.2015, that has been reproduced in the impugned order of the trial Court and highlighted that the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority had categorically observed in the note-sheet that on 28.09.2015, when the Investigating Officer had approached him eliciting prosecution sanction, he had clearly stated that copies and documents enclosed with the letter of SP, CBI were provided to DGIT (Vigilance), New Delhi and if required, he can produce these documents and statements for his perusal.

8. Having underscored this part of the note-sheet, learned Senior Counsel argued that it is apparent that at the time of grant of prosecution sanction, the relevant documents were not available with the PW-2 (authority granting prosecution sanction) and therefore, the petitioner wants to confront such witnesses in relation to such information and pose other relevant questions germane for petitioner’s defence. Identical submissions were made for PW-17 (the Investigating Officer) as well. However, petition qua PW-13-Rajendra Singh was not pressed.

9. Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent-CBI vehemently opposed petitioner’s prayer and contended that the application under consideration was filed by the petitioner simply with a view to buy time or prolong the proceedings.

10. He navigated the Court through the statements and cross-examination of PW-2 and submitted that all sorts of questions including availability of the documents while issuing prosecution sanction order on 28.09.2015 had already been put to such witnesses.

11. While inviting Court’s attention towards the note-sheet dated 28.09.2015, learned Senior Advocate argued that the petitioner has chosen to read part of the note-sheet which suits his cause, else the Prosecution Sanctioning Authority had clearly recorded that on his request, the Investigating Officer had