JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 („Cr.P.C.‟), the petitioner seeks (i) quashing of order dated 27.10.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi in CC No. 250/2019 titled „CBI v. Rajesh Kumar Khatri‟ whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, and (ii) recalling of complainant/PW-2 for further cross-examination.

2. In the present case, the petitioner, who was working as Under Secretary with Ministry of Ayush and handling the additional charge of M.D. with M/s. Indian Medicines Pharmaceutical Corporation Ltd.

(IMPCL), was arrested on the complaint of one Sh. Janak Sharma (PW- 2) who had alleged that the petitioner was demanding bribe of Rs.30 lakhs from him in lieu of releasing payment of the his pending bills with IMPCL.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the examination- in-chief of the complainant/PW-2 was recorded before the learned Trial Court on 08.10.2021 and 23.11.2021, and his cross-examination had also commenced on 23.11.2021. However, it is stated that petitioner had placed on record voluminous documents and even prosecution, besides other documents, had relied upon transcripts of the audio recordings running into several pages, and as such, the petitioner had to confront PW-2 with the documents filed by the prosecution as well as by the petitioner himself. It is stated that though the counsel for petitioner was granted sufficient time by the learned Trial Court to cross-examine the complainant, the counsel had inadvertently failed to put the suggestions in defence of the petitioner to PW-2 which are of paramount importance for the case of petitioner. It is stated that immediately upon realising his mistake, the counsel for the petitioner had filed an application dated 29.08.2022 for recalling of the witness but the same was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he be granted only 15 minutes as he intends to put only a few suggestions in defence of the petitioner to the complainant.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI argues that there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order as the counsel for the petitioner before the learned Trial Court had got sufficient time and opportunity to cross-examine the complainant/PW-2. It is stated that PW-2 was cross-examined at length on four dates of hearing i.e. 23.11.2021, 16.02.2022, 23.03.2022 and 11.07.2022, and his cross-

examination runs into 38 pages.

5. I have heard the rival contentions and have perused the material on record.

6. At the outset, this Court takes note of Section 311 Cr.P.C., which provides as under:

“311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present—Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

7. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2013) 14 SCC 461 had laid down guidelines regarding exercise of powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:

“15.3. In the decision in Raj Deo Sharma (2) v. State of Bihar, the proposition has been reiterated as under in paragraph 9:

(SCC p. 613)

“9. We may observe that the power of the court as envisaged in Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been curtailed by this Court. Neither in the decision of the five-Judge Bench in A.R. Antulay case nor in Kartar Singh case such power has been restricted for achieving speedy trial. In other words, even if the prosecution evidence is closed in compliance with the directions contained in the main