* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : 3rd MAY, 2017 DECIDED ON : 25th AUGUST, 2017 + CRL.M.C. 4406/2013 & CRL.M.A.No.15774/2013 NATASHA SINGH ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Dinesh Mathur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.K.Saxena, Mr.Kawal & Mr.Rohit, Advocates.

VERSUS CBI (STATE) ..... Respondent Through : Ms.Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms.Garima Singh Yadav, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.

1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 05.10.2013 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge / Special Judge in CC No. 42/2001 whereby DW-6 (V.C.Mishra) examined in defence by the petitioner was not permitted to give evidence to render his opinion upon the report given by PW-32 (S.L.Mukhi).

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner along with others was facing trial before Special Judge, CBI. On 21.01.2013, the prosecution closed its evidence after examining 52 witnesses; it included PW-32 (S.L.Mukhi), retired Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL, New Delhi, a handwriting expert who prove his report (Ex.PW-32/L) and opined that the questioned signature at point Q-7 in Ex.PW-32/L was that of the petitioner. After recording 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the petitioner examined DW-2 (Sudhir Kumar) in her defence and the case was listed for final arguments for 05.03.2013. Subsequently, on 05.03.2013, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 16.03.2013. Crl.M.C. 1324/2013 to impugn the said order resulted in its dismissal by this Court. In Crl.A.709/2013 arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3271/2013, the petitioner was permitted to examine defence witnesses by an order dated 08.05.2013. The petitioner thereafter examined DW-4 (Bacha Babu Sharma) and DW-5 (Shanti Swaroop Batra). On 30.08.2013, handwriting expert V.C.Mishra filed expert opinion vide his report dated 12.08.2013 along with its enclosures in the Court and was partly examined that day and on 18.09.2013. Further examination-in-chief was deferred to move an application relating to his examination; it was filed on 24.09.2013. By the impugned order, the said application was dismissed.

3. Perusal of the file reveals that DW-6 (V.C.Mishra) when examined on 30.08.2013 proved his report (Ex.DW-6/A) and was of the view that Q-7 in Ex.PW-32/L was not written by the writer of S-34 to S-64 (Ex.PW-32/H-1 to Ex.PW-32/H-27 and Ex.PW-50/A-1 to Ex.PW-50/A-4). On 18.09.2013, he proved various documents. Further examination was deferred as the petitioner desired to move an application relating to the examination of the witness. DW-6 (V.C.Mishra) again appeared on 21.10.2013 and was partly examined. Further examination was deferred to enable the petitioner to challenge order dated 05.10.2013. On 31.10.2014, it was submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that examination-in-chief of DW-6 (V.C.Mishra) would be deemed to have been closed subject to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court on the issue in question. The witness was cross-examined at length that day and on 31.03.2015.

4. Instant writ petition was filed against the order dated 05.10.2013 before this Court which came for hearing on 22.10.2013. It was adjourned to 28.10.2013, 09.12.2013 and 19.02.2014. Crl.M.A. 10945/2014 was filed for return of the Trial Court record. The Trial Court record was sent back on 30.09.2014 to be requisitioned two days before the next date of hearing i.e. 05.11.2014. On 23.11.2015, it was informed that the case was fixed for judgment on 26.11.2015 before the Trial Court. This Court ordered to immediately send back the Trial Court record. However, it was made clear that ‘the judgment, if delivered, shall be the subject matter of the present case’. In the meanwhile, the Trial Court vide a judgment dated 07.12.2015 convicted Rita Singh, Natasha Singh (the present petitioner) and Y.V.Luthra for commission of various offences. The petitioner and other conv