IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 15.01.2025 Mahavir Mittal ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Mr. Sumit Kalyan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.11.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby, two applications filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. as well as two other miscellaneous applications filed by the petitioner have been ordered to be dismissed in a case arising out of FIR No. 7 dated 23.05.2018 registered under Sections 7 and 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station S.V.B.

Rohtak.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one FIR under Sections 7 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the PC Act’) was registered against the present petitioner on the basis of the complaint moved by the complainant with the allegations that his two cases regarding his shop and house were pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Rohtak. When the complainant met the petitioner, who was working in the copy branch of District Court, Rohtak, for getting some certified copies of documents, the petitioner falsely told him that the judicial officer was well known to him and the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant and the petitioner had taken a sum of Rs. 18,000/- from him. With these broad allegations, the FIR in the present case was registered against the petitioner.

3. After the presentation of the challan, the charge under Sections 7, 9 and 13 of the PC Act was framed against the petitioner by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak on 26.07.2018 and, thereafter, the case was listed for prosecution evidence. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner moved four applications before the trial Court and vide the impugned order dated 16.11.2024 (Annexure P-6), all four applications were ordered to be dismissed by the trial Court.

4. First of all, this Court would deal with two applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner. The first application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-1) was filed by the petitioner on 29.11.2022 with a prayer to re-examine the complainant by stating that PW2 Ashok Kumar complainant appeared as a witness on 18.07.2019, wherein, he had supported the prosecution case and stated that the petitioner had demanded bribe and he had paid bribe to the petitioner. However, during the departmental inquiry held on 22.02.2019, complainant Ashok Kumar (PW2) had turned hostile and had not supported the case of the prosecution. Consequently, it was requested that permission may be granted to the petitioner to re-examine PW2 Ashok Kumar, complainant.

5. Second application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-2) was moved by the present petitioner on 21.04.2023 for recalling PW5 Daya Chand, shadow witness and PW9 Pawan Kumar, Duty Magistrate for further cross-examination/re-examination. In the application (Annexure P-2), it was stated that the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak, had colluded with his lawyer Mr. J.K. Gakhar and the statements of PW5 Daya Chand and PW9 Pawan Kumar were wrongly recorded. In fact, PW5 Daya Chand, shadow witness had stated in his statement dated 26.02.2020 that they had not apprehended the petitioner and he was not the same person. However, the Additional District and Sessions Judge did not dictate this line and some other line was dictated. Even, his counsel J.K. Gakhar, Advocate did not raise any objection on the same. When the petitioner came to know about the same, he took copy of the statement of the shadow witness from the Court, got it read through his counsel and came to know that the Additional District and Sessions Judge, had removed the said line from the statement and even his law