NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023:DHC: 3356

CRL.M.C. 1085/2023

Page 1 of 8

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 11.05.2023

Pronounced on:15.05.2023

+

CRL.M.C. 1085/2023

RAJESH KUMAR KHATRI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Advocate

versus

STATE OF DELHI THR CBI

.....Respondent

Through:

Mr. Nikhil Goel, SPP for State

with

Mr.

Kartik

Kaushal,

Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

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.

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:18.05.2023

19:15:44

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023:DHC: 3356

CRL.M.C. 1085/2023

Page 2 of 8

(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

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:18.05.2023

19:15:44

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023:DHC: 3356

CRL.M.C. 1085/2023

Page 3 of 8

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