The court emphasized the duty to allow the prosecution to correct errors in the interest of justice and to find out the truth, citing the wide powers of the court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and Section 165 of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the petitioner-CBI and Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 19.06.2023 and 23.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge III cum Special Judge, CBI Cases, Dhanbad in connection with CBI Case No. 23(A)/1993-R, whereby, the petition filed by the CBI under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned Court.

3. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the petitioner-CBI submits that the case was registered against the opposite party under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He submits that the assets acquired by the opposite party during June, 1980 to November, 1993 is disproportionate to the extent of Rs. 23,81,430/- which is he alleged to have acquired by corrupt and illegal means and which he cannot explain satisfactorily. He further submits that the CBI has examined altogether 30 witnesses in the case and PWs. 19 and 20 are sought to be recalled for exhibit of certain documents contained in the list of documents along with the charge-sheet. He also submits that the learned Court has been pleased to reject the prayer vide order dated 19.06.2023, however, the prayer with regard to I.O. was allowed. He submits that on 23.06.2023, a petition was filed on behalf of the CBI to grant further three weeks' time to examine the I.O. on the ground that he is having some ailment, which has been rejected by the learned Court vide order dated 23.06.2023. He further submits that in a shorter period, if any date is fixed by this Court, the CBI will examine the said witnesses. He submits that three witnesses are essential witnesses and in view of that, the prayer made in this petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned orders may kindly be set aside.

4. The said arguments of Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.S.G.I. is being resisted by Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for opposite party on the ground that the case has already proceeded and is pending since last 30 years and the CBI has already examined 30 witnesses. He submits that PWs. 19 and 20 have already been examined in the year 2019. He further submits that it is well settled that for filling up lacuna, Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed. To buttress this argument, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328. Paragraph 12 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below:

“12. Where the prosecution evidence has been closed long back and the reasons for non-examination of the witness earlier are not satisfactory, the summoning of the witness at belated stage would cause great prejudice to the accused and should not be allowed. Similarly, the court should not encourage the filing of successive applications for recall of a witness under this provision.”

On these grounds, Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the opposite party submits that there are no illegalities in the impugned orders and the learned Court has rightly passed the orders dated 19.06.2023 and 23.06.2023.

5. It is an admitted position that the opposite party is facing trial in a case of disproportionate of assets to the tune of Rs. 23,81,430/-. PWs. 19 and 20 have already been examined in the year 2019, however, petition was filed by the CBI to recall PWs. 19 and 20 and to examine the I.O. and by the impugned order dated 19.06.2023, so far as recalling of PWs. 19 and 20 are concerned, that has been rejected, however, learned Court has been pleased to hold that the I.O. is essential witness and the said prayer was allowed by the said order and vide order dated 23.06.2023, the learned Court has not allowed further time to examine the said I.O. and has rejected the same.

6. The object underlying Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is that there may not be fai