* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL. M.C. 1324/2009 MS. NATASHA SINGH Petitioner Through: Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr.

Advocate with Mr. Kawal Nain, Ms. Bhavya Nain and Ms. Kavita, Advocates Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (STATE)

....Respondent Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI with Mr. Manoj Pant, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % ORDER

08.04.2013

1. Petitioner is facing trial in Criminal Complaint No.42/01 titled as CBI V. Rita Singh and Ors. for the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 read with Section 120-B of IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) ofPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988. At the stage of final hearing, petitioner had preferred an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for getting examined Mr. B.B.Sharma, DGM (Operation & Administration) of Mesco Airlines, Mr. S.S. Batra, the then Company Secretary,whohadpurportedlysigned letter of March, 1996 from M/s. Mideast (India) Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. B.B. Huria, G.M. (IFCI),requestingissuanceofNOC,andHandwritingExpertto establish that letterof May, 1996{Ex.P-32/A)purportedlysignedbypetitioner does not bear her signatures.

2. Trial court vide impugnedorder of 16*^^ March, 2013 dismissed petitioner'saforesaidapplicationbyobservingthatthewitnessessought to be got examinedbypetitioneras accusedarenotnecessaryand shall inno wayassist injust decisionofthe case.

3. At the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioner had vehementlycontendedthat Section311 of Cr.P.C. mandatespermitting offresh evidenceifit is necessaryforjust decisionofthis case.To assert so,reliancewasplacedupondecisionsinT. Nagappav. Y.R. Muralidhar (2008) 5 see 633; KalyaniBaskarv. M.S. Sampooram(2007)2 SCC 258;Ronald WoodMathamsv. Stateof WestBengal(1995)1 SCC 216; Arivazhaganv. State (2000) 3 SCC 328; SelviJ Jayalalithav. State (2000)9 SCC754;MohanlalShamjiSoniv. UnionofIndia&Anr. AIR 1991 SC 1346; Rajindra Prasad v. The Narcotic Cell AIR 1999 SC 2292;P. SanjeevaRaov. StateofAPAIR2012SC 2242;P. Chhaganlal Daga V. M. Sanjay Shaw (2003) 11 SCC 486; Zahira HabibullaH. Sheikh V. State of GujaratAIR2004 SC 3114; Surender@ Kalwa v. State(GNCT)2012 (V) AD (Delhi)721;Deepakv. State2012 (1) JCC 230(Delhi)andRadekaChandharyv. NCTofDelhi2012(3)JCC 1773. 4. Learned counsel for respondenthad drawn the attentionof this CourttoparagraphsNo. 10to12 oftheimpugnedjudgmenttosupportit and it was submitted that examination of second witness in respect of documents recovered vide panchnama Ex.PW-11/1 (D-26) is just multiplicityofevidence and evenifthe witness Mr. B.B. Sharmasought to be got examined in respect ofthe aforesaiddocumentshad signedthe panchnama and not the recovered documents, it makes no difference. Regarding examining Mr. S.S. Batra as defence witness, it was asserted by respondent'scounselthat his depositionis totallyunnecessaryas it is not disputed on behalf of prosecution that Mr. S.S. Batra had written a letterof 1®^ March, 1996 to Mr. B.B. Huria.As regardsexaminationof Handwriting Expert as defence witness in respect of signatures of petitioner on letter of May, 1996 (Ex.PW-32/A),it was argued by respondent's counsel that petitioner-accused has not denied in her statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. regarding her signing the letter (Ex.PW-32/A)and so, petitioner's application is misconceived and it has been filed just to delay the trial of this case, which is pending for more than a decade and so, this petition ought to be dismissed.

5. Both the sides have been heard. Impugned order, copy of charge- sheet and the material on record as well as the decisions cited have been meticulously considered and thereupon, I find that it is beyond any dispute that an accused has a right to fair trial and the rules ofprocedure designed to ensure justice have to be scrupulously followed and that delay alone cannot come in the way of administration of justice. It is equally true that an accused knows how to prove his defence, and what should be the nature of