The court emphasized the importance of caution and circumspection in exercising the power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, and highlighted the need for a fair trial and the applicant's failure to cross-examine the witness as key legal principles.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“1. Quash the impugned order dated 17.01.2018 passed by learned Special Judge, Anticorruption CBI, Dehradun in Case No. 13/2010 under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC r/w Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act titled as CBI vs. G.B. Goyal and Others and allow the application of the petitioner to recall PW-10 so that the petitioner may cross-examine PW-10.

2. Stay the proceedings of Case No. 13/2010 under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC r/w Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act titled as CBI vs. G.B. Goyal and Others pending in the Court of Special Judge Anticorruption CBI, Dehradun during the pendency of the present case.”

2. An F.I.R. was registered against the applicant with the allegations that the applicant with other co-accused person, while posted at BHEL, Canteen, Main Stores, Haridwar entered into a criminal conspiracy with the suppliers of the goods with the object to cheat BHEL to the extent of 32 lakhs approximately by submitting bogus bills of the supplies and also on account of misappropriation in accounting of various items thereby causing wrongful loss to the BHEL and wrongful gain to themselves. The Investigating Officer, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the applicant. Thereafter, on 07.01.2016 witness, namely, Mr. Ravinder Singh, Constable CISF No. 884493853 was examined as PW-10. On that day, the counsel for the applicant could not come to the Court due to illness. He was duly cross-examined by the counsel for other co-accused persons; but, insofar as the applicant is concerned, the applicant expressed his inability to cross-examine the witness due to the illness of his counsel. Thereafter, applicant moved an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking recall of the witness PW-10 Mr. Ravindra Singh for cross-examination. The learned Special Judge, Anticorruption CBI, Dehradun rejected the said application of the applicant on 17.01.2018. Against the said order, present criminal misc. application has been filed by the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that cross examination could not be conducted, as the counsel for the applicant was ill on that day; but, the trial Court closed the right of the applicant. He further submitted that applicant waited for other witnesses of CISF to be examined. Had those witnesses been examined, in that event, there was no need for applicant to move such application; but, since those witnesses were not examined, the applicant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Lastly, he submitted that the application of the applicant be allowed subject to payment of costs.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to paragraph nos. 6 and 9 of the judgment rendered by Karnataka High Court in the matter of H.K. Sathisha vs. State, 2007 (3) Crimes 632 (Kar.) and submitted that there must be a free & fair trial. Fair hearing should be given to the parties and trial should not be hasty. It is also submitted that in case any party is playing dilatory tactics, in that event, the Court is competent to deal such dilatory tactics. Paragraph nos. 6 and 9 of the aforesaid judgment read as follows:

“6. It is unfortunate that the accused refused to avail of the legal assistance offered by the Trial Court at the State expense, when the Counsel appearing for him filed the retirement memos. It is equally unfortunate that subsequently when the accused had engaged an Advocate and sought for recalling of the prosecution witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination, the same was refused by the Trial Court. No doubt the Trial Court had its own constraints in view of the time frame fixed by this Court for the trial and the accused had adopted his own tactics to prolong the trial obviously with intent to secure the benefit of bail during the trial. But then having regard to the nature of the charges f