The principle of fair trial and the necessity to consider the facts of the case in ensuring a just decision.

JUDGMENT :-

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the order dated 18.12.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.8168 of 2019 in C.C.No.32 of 2008 in the Court of the XI Additional Sessions Judge for CBI Cases (Banks & Financial Institutions), Chennai - 600 001 in BS & FC-BLR RC 1(E)/07 on the file of the respondent, pending disposal of the original petition.)

(The case has been heard through video conference)

1. This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 18.12.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.8168 of 2019 in C.C.No.32 of 2008 passed by the XI Additional Sessions Judge for CBI Cases (Banks & Financial Institutions) dismissing the petition filed under Section 311 to recall the witnesses for cross examination.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.5108 of 2016 to add P.W.2 (Smt.C.S.Narayani) as an accused in C.C.No.32 of 2008 since, the charges against the P.W.2 and the petitioner were one and the same before the departmental proceedings, whereas, the petitioner was made as a scape goat and the P.W.2 was exonerated in the departmental proceedings. Based on the outcome of the departmental proceedings, P.W.2 was also not added as an accused in C.C.No.32 of 2008 pending before the trial Court. Since there were specific materials against P.W.2, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.5108 of 2016 to add P.W.2 as an accused in the case. However, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by an order dated 29.06.2018. Against the dismissal in Crl.M.P.No.5108 of 2016, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1433 of 2018 and the same was dismissed by this Court by order dated 30.01.2019. The petitioner had thereafter, applied for certified copy of the order through his Counsel on 30.01.2019 and the copy was made ready only during the first week of July 2019. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and preferred a Special Leave Petition in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.516 of 2020. However, the S.L.P. was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 28.02.2020. Further, during the pendency of the petitions, the petitioner had as an abundant caution, preferred the petition to recall the witnesses. He would submit that it was not the intention of the petitioner to delay cross examination of witnesses. Since the impleadment of P.W.2 as accused has a direct bearing on the fabric of the case, the petitioner took time to cross examine P.W.2 and the other witnesses. The petitioner had been all along co-operating with the prosecution in the trial and only for the above reason, the petitioner was unable to cross examine the witnesses. He would further submit that the recall and cross examination of the witnesses is essential to arrive at a just decision of the case. He would further submit that the trial Court taking into consideration the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 220 had dismissed the petition. He would submit that fair trial is the main object of any criminal proceedings and it is the duty of the Court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened. Fair trial is constitutional as well as human right and under no circumstances, the persons right to fair trial can be jeopardised by a straight jacket formula and it is necessary that the facts and circumstances in the particular case has to be taken into account. He would submit that if the witnesses are not permitted to be recalled and if the petitioner is not permitted to cross examine them, grave and irreparable prejudice would be caused to the petitioner and it will be against the principles of fair trial. Whereas, the learned trial Judge, without taking into consideration the facts of the case, relying on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, has passed the order. He would further sub