Accused have a right to represent themselves through a pleader but cannot cross-examine witnesses using non-advocates without court permission, ensuring procedural integrity.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 5.9.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), in Case No. 900421 of 2014, titled CBI Vs. DSS Ravindera, vide which the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/applicants. It has been asserted that the CBI filed a charge sheet in the Court of learned Special Judge, Shimla for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Sections 419 , 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the present petitioner and other accused persons. Learned Trial Court framed charges and examined 63 witnesses. Sh. Rajinder Singh Rana, Additional Director and Scientist (C), CFSL Unit Shimla was examined on 17.7.2023 and his cross-examination was deferred for 5.9.2023 as the Court time was over. Learned counsel representing the petitioner showed his inability to cross-examine the witness on 5.9.2023 as he was not conversant with the Forensic Science technicalities. He sought permission to cross-examine the witness through Mr. Arvind Sood, a handwriting expert. He filed Han application for this purpose. However, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application without calling for a reply from the CBI. The other accused have cross-examined Rajinder Singh Rana. Learned Trial Court erred in holding that no prayer can be made to cross-examine the witness through an independent handwriting expert. The witness was deferred by the Court and not at the request of the learned counsel. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed, the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside and permission be granted to the petitioners to cross-examine the witness through independent handwriting expert Mr. Arvind Sood.

2. I have heard Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Bansal, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent no.1-CBI.

3. Mr. Rajesh Krashyap, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners. The petitioners being accused have a right to defend themselves and the learned Trial Court denied this right to the petitioners. The learned Trial Court should have called for the reply of the CBI and thereafter considered the application on merit. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

4. Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Counsel for respondent No.1/CBI submitted that the accused can only be represented by a counsel and not by any other person without the permission of the Court. If the learned counsel for the petitioner wanted the assistance of any handwriting expert, it was the duty of the petitioners to provide such assistance and the Court was not bound to grant adjournment for this purpose. Learned Trial Court had rightly held that the application was meant to delay the proceedings and rightly dismissed the same.

5. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.

6. The photocopy (not the certified copy) of the application filed before the learned Special Judge (CBI) has been filed as Annexure P-2. It was stated in the application that Rajinder Singh Rana is Assistant Director and Forensic Expert. He prepared a report, which was attached to the charge sheet. The report filed by