The court upheld the trial court's discretion to decline permission for cross-examination in question-answer format, emphasizing the directive nature of the Supreme Court's judgment and the witness's lack of personal knowledge regarding the seized documents.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. (Oral). - Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the Special Judge, CBI Court, U.T. Chandigarh, vide which an application filed by the petitioner-accused for granting permission to cross-examine PW40 Karan Singh Rana, in question-answer format, was declined.

2. Brief facts of the case are that FIR No.RCCHG2013A0011 dated 29.05.2013 under Section 109 IPC and Section 13(l)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, was registered at Police Station CBI, ACH, Chandigarh against the petitioner on a complaint given by Inspector Ravinder Kush, CBI, ACB, Chandigarh and the petitioner-accused was caught redhanded by CBI, while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.50,000/-. While recording statement of PW40 K.S. Rana, Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation in part, an application was moved for granting permission to cross-examine him in question-answer format, however, the trial Court dismissed the application, by passing the following order: -

"I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the CBI and also gone through the cited case law.

It is conceded by the learned counsel for the accused that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cited case law has observed that "where-ever necessary the deposition may recorded in question and answer format". The only ground being made out by the learned defence counsel in the present case is that the case is a technical case, and hence, cross examination be done in question answer format ofPW40 Investigating Officer.

A perusal of the examination in chief recorded of PW 40 goes to show that he was part Investigating Officer of the present case, and his testimony mainly related to the recording of the statements of the witnesses, and having seized the documents received from the bank, insurance companies and financial companies, and he had accordingly prepared the seizure memo of the said documents, and thereafter, on the completion of investigation had filled the charge sheet. There is not an iota of evidence in the examination in chief of the witness where he may have referred to any calculations of any bank or any financial institution. The witness only related to seizure of documents and not to the proving of the said documents.

This witness was examined on 04.05.2022 and was not cross examined as the junior counsel had requested to defer the cross examination as the main counsel has to undergo cataract surgery. After 04.05.2022, the witness was called for today for his cross examination, and today instead of cross examining the witness, the present application has been filed, which if required could have been filed since the examination of the witness on 04.05.2022. It seems that on the previous date, the cross examination of the witness was deferred due to the genuine reason, but today the application has been filed only to further delay the proceedings.

If the accused was of the opinion that he would have to cross examine the witness in question answer format, then such application could have been filed by him earlier also which he did not do purposely. Moreover, as discussed above, the witness only relates to seizure of documents and putting him questions during his cross examination, and then seeking his answers would further prolong the examination of the witness which can easily be concluded by putting him straight forward questions and getting his answers and recording the same.

It was also suggested to the counsel for the accused that in case there would be some difficulty in witness understanding the questions put to him, the court would assist in the same, but the learned counsel for the accused has refused to cross examine the witness stating that he was not being allowed to do so by the accused, and that the accused would further like to go into revision against the declining of relief to him to cross examine the witness in question answer form