The main legal point established is that while the court has the power to curtail the list of defense witnesses, it must provide the accused with an opportunity to show the relevancy of the witnesses and ensure fair opportunities for both parties.

1. By this judgment, four petitions bearing Crl. Revn. Nos. 3823, 3825, 3880 and 3998 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as the issues in all the petitions are more or less the same. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from Crl. Revn. No. 3823 of 2014. Briefly the facts of the case are that petitioner is facing trial in case FIR No. RC 5(S)/2002/SIU-XV/CHG dated 12.12.2002 for offence punishable under Sections 376, 506 and 509 IPC registered at Police Station Special Crime Branch, CBI, Chandigarh. The said FIR was registered on the directions issued by this Court on 24.9.2002 in Crl. Misc. No. 26994-M of 2002 dated 24.9.2002 as writ jurisdiction was invoked by this Court on its own motion in respect of an anonymous complaint. The chargesheet was filed against accused-petitioner on 30.7.2007 and case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, CBI for trial for offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 IPC on 6.9.2008. The prosecution submitted a list of total 28 witnesses, out of which, 15 were examined during the period from 2008 to 2013. On 3.9.2013, the evidence of the prosecution was closed and statement of accused was recorded under Section313 Cr.P.C. on 11.2.2014. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner submitted a list of 98 defence witnesses, out of which some were examined and some were found to be dead. Even some of the witnesses who were not part of the list were also allowed to be examined, some witnesses were given up as they were not found to be available on the address given in the list. Vide impugned order dated 15.11.2014, the list of defence witnesses was curtailed and defence was allowed to examine D.W.-Tek Chand Sethi. It was also mentioned in the said order that in case accused wants to examine himself as defence witness, an application can be moved in this regard.

2. Order dated 15.11.2014 is now the subject matter of challenge in Crl. Revn. No. 3823 of 2014. After passing of aforesaid order i.e. dated 15.11.2014, the petitioner moved another application to examine Ms. Sudesh, Sh. Dharam Singh, Sh. Mohan Singh and Sh. Gurdial Singh, which was dismissed on 29.11.2014. Thereafter two more applications were also moved by the petitioner with the same request, which were dismissed on the ground that Court cannot review or recall its own order.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner by challenging the impugned order submits that there was no delay on the part of petitioner as defence of the petitioner started in the month of February, 2014 itself, whereas, the prosecution took more than four and a half years to conclude the prosecution evidence. Learned senior counsel contends that curtailing of list of witnesses amounts denial of fair trial whereas earlier the petitioner was allowed to examine all witnesses but subsequently without hearing the counsel for the petitioner and without giving any sufficient reason, list was curtailed. Learned senior counsel further contends that the finding recorded by the trial Court is contrary to the facts as an opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioner before passing of order of curtailing list of witnesses. Learned senior counsel also submits that examination of the witnesses is necessary to prove the innocence of the accused and the impugned order has been passed contrary to the provisions of Section 243(2)of Cr.P.C. Learned senior counsel has also relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of Abdul Basit @ Raju v. Md. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary 2014 (4) RCR (Criminal) 716, Surendra Singh v. State of Bihar 2006 (2) Criminal Court Cases 367 (SC), Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa 2000(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 650 : AIR 2001 Supreme Court 43, Natasha Singh v. CBI (State), 2013(3) R. C.R. (Criminal) 368 : 2013(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 95 : 2013 Crl. L.J. 3346, Ronald Wood Mathams v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 Supreme Court 445, Girjanandan Singh v. Emperor, AIR (31) 1944 Patn