Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 1196
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHANTANU KEMKAR, G. S. SOLANKI, JJ.
VINOD KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – Respondent
Cri. Rev. No. 2006 of 2015
Decided On : 26-08-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ajay Mishra, M. R. Khan
For the Respondent: J. K. Jain
Competency of the sanctioning authority and procedural aspects can be challenged during cross-examination, and the legislation aims to save time and prevent procrastination in corruption cases.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Examination of Defence Witnesses - Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2), 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC - Section 243(1) of CrPC, Section 22 of Prevention of Corruption Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a Criminal Revision being aggrieved by the rejection of their prayer to examine proposed defence witnesses in a trial for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court did not dissuade the petitioners from adducing witnesses in their defence, but found that the proposed witnesses were intended to prove procedural aspects and competency of the sanctioning authority, which had already been extensively cross-examined. The trial Court dismissed the application, and the High Court upheld the decision, citing the intention of legislation to save time and prevent procrastination in corruption cases.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioners' application to examine defence witnesses, particularly regarding the procedural aspects of the department and the competency of the sanctioning authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the competency of the sanctioning authority and procedural aspects could be challenged during cross-examination, and the intention of legislation was to save time and prevent procrastination in corruption cases.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision, upholding the trial Court's decision to reject the application to examine defence witnesses.
JUDGMENT :
1. Shri Ajay Mishra, Senior Counsel with Shri M. R. Khan, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri J. K. Jain, Advocate for the respondent.
2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. This Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by order dated 14-8-2015 passed by Special Judge, CBI, Bhopal in Special Case No. 09/2005 whereby prayer made by the petitioners to examine the proposed defence witnesses has been rejected.
4. The petitioners are facing trial before the trial Court for the offences punishable under sections 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners previously filed Criminal Revision No. 1570/2015 before this Court being aggrieved by order dated 8-7-2015 passed by Special Judge, CBI, Bhopal in Special Case No. 09/2005, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20-7-2015 with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh application giving all details about the relevancy of the witnesses to whom, they want to examine as defence witnesses. It was further observed by this Court that in case the trial Court finds that calling of the witnesses would be necessary, it shall call the witnesses by way of summons at the first instance and the trial Court shall not be influenced by its earlier order dated 8-7-2015.
6. In compliance of the order dated 20-7-2015, the petitioners filed a fresh list of witnesses (P-12) with the details of relevancy of the witnesses. The trial Court after hearing both the parties has dismissed the aforesaid application, hence this revision.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the trial Court has committed illegality in passing the impugned order. The trial Court has dismissed the application only on the ground that since the petitioners had an occasion to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and if they do not examine him on the point of procedure adopted in the department concerned, then permission to examine the witnesses on procedure adopted by the department cannot be granted. It is further submitted that in this way, the petitioners have been deprived of from adducing the evidence in their defence, therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in the eye of law and same deserves to be set aside.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/CBI has justified and supported the order passed by the trial Court.
9. We have gone through the impugned order and other material on record. It reveals from the perusal of the impugned order that the trial Court has not dissuaded the petitioners to adduce the witnesses in their defence, on the contrary, witnesses Anand Aiyer, Dr. Smt. Gazala Ali Khan, Mahesh Rawat and Sharad Kumar Yadav of the department have already been examined as defence witnesses.
10. As far as fresh application filed by the petitioners along with the details of relevancy of witnesses, is concerned, it is true that the petitioners filed such application (P-12) with details of relevancy of witnesses but the trial Court has assigned the reason in the impugned order that the petitioners are intended to call the witnesses to prove the procedure of the office for which the petitioners have already made extensive cross-examination of the witnesses who passed the order of sanction of prosecution.
11. It is well established principle of law that competency of sanctioning authority along with his application of mind at the time of passing the sanctioning order can be challenged in his cross-examination itself. Further, now it is for the trial Court to evaluate the testimony of such witnesses at the time of passing the judgment. It is not necessary for the Court to allow the petitioners to adduce the evidence in regard to competency of sanctioning authority as well as on the fact that how he applied his mind at the time of passing th
