Ranjit Dadlani vs State Through Cbi
2011 Latest Caselaw 4834 Del

*               HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     Crl.M.C. No. 3270/2011

                                  Date of Decision: 28.9.2011

    RANJIT DADLANI                        ..... Petitioner
                 Through: Rakesh Dahiya, Mr.Madhur
                           Dadlani and Mr. Gagan Deep
                           Sharma, Advs.
                 versus
    STATE THROUGH CBI            ..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

V.K. SHALI, J.(Oral)

1. This is a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated

06.09.2011 by virtue of which the application of the

petitioner for summoning of six witnesses as Court

Witness was dismissed with the observation that if the

petitioner wants he can examine them in his defence

and he may do so, so far as the examination of the

witnesses as Court Witness is concerned, that stage has

not yet arrived as the petitioner has yet to adduce his

defence.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner is

facing a trial for an offence under the Prevention of

Corruption Act. The prosecution case against the

accused persons is that a complaint Ex.PW-1/A made by

Mohd. Ali Zamir was received on 11.03.1996, who

alleged that the petitioner had demanded a bribe of

Rs.20,000/- as a commission or reward for preparation

of a final bill for a contract awarded to his firm M/s

Zamiruddin & Sons vide agreement dated 03.08.1995,

to carry out the work of 5-B, Sub-Division Curzon Road,

New Delhi

3. On the basis of the said complaint a trap was laid down

and a raiding party reached to the office of the present

petitioner who had, some conversation with the

complainant about the bribe and thereafter accused

No.1 called co-accused Arun Kumar Singh from the

adjacent room and told him to receive the bribe amount

from the complainant outside the office. The

complainant insisted upon the petitioner to accompany

them because bribe was settled with him and, therefore,

it was for him to accept the same. On this complainant

as well as the present petitioner and his co-accused

came out of the office and the co-accused started his

scooter. The petitioner sat on the pillion seat and told

the complainant to follow them on his own scooter.

They all proceeded towards Jaswant Singh Road where

they turned towards Rajendra Prasad Road where the

co-accused Arun Kumar Singh stopped the scooter. The

present petitioner signaled the complainant to stop and

then he talked with the complainant about the bribe

money which he accepted and after opening the dickey

of the scooter of his co-accused, Arun Kumar kept the

money amounting to Rs.20,000/- in the same. On the

signal being given by the complainant the trap party

then apprehended the petitioner on the spot along with

the tainted money which was recovered from the dickey

of the scooter of the co-accused.

4. The case of the present petitioner is that the log books

of the vehicles and the visitors register at his office will

show that the vehicle of the CBI members who had

entered the area where the office was situated as well

as the visit of the present petitioner and therefore

certain records and witnesses were sought to be

summoned.

5. Without going into the further details it would be suffice

to mention here that High Court had earlier passed an

order on 27.02.2004 on the application of the petitioner

that certain records be produced at the time when the

IO is examined. So far as the application of the present

petitioner for examination of these witnesses is

concerned, it has been observed that this request was

to be made to the Court but this request was not made

on the ground that in case these witnesses were

produced in defence, will the accused not be able to

cross-examine them.

6. It was further observed by the Learned Special Judge

that the petitioner had filed a similar application on

13.02.2009 seeking summoning of the present

witnesses mentioned at serial No.1 to 5 of this very

application which was dismissed on 26.02.2010 by

holding that at that stage the application was not

maintainable and the petitioner is at liberty to move

such an application at the stage of defence evidence.

Now when the defence evidence has started the present

petitioner has renewed his application seeking

summoning of these five witnesses and added one more

witness i.e. the Ahlmad of the Court of

Sh.V.K.Maheshwari, Learned Special Judge, Tis Hazari

Courts.

7. The ground for summoning these witnesses as stated

hereinabove is that the petitioner's right to cross-

examine will not survive in case witnesses are produced

in defence. Learned Special Judge has once again

observed that question as to whether a person should

be summoned as a Court witness or not will be

considered, once the defendant closes his evidence. It

is for the trial Court essentially to form an opinion

whether the testimony of any witness will be necessary

for the just and proper decision of the case or not. If it

comes to such a conclusion then this application will be

allowed, failing which the application will be dismissed.

The Court also observed that the petitioner is free to

examine these witnesses in defence.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

have also gone through the impugned order. I do not

find that the impugned order suffers from any infirmity

or illegality. Much less there is any gross abuse of

processes of law or any order to the contrary is required

to be passed to further the interest of justice. The issue

which is involved in the present case is as to whether

the witnesses whose details are given in the application

and in the impugned order whether they have to be

summoned as Court witness or not? The learned

Special Judge has rightly observed that so far as the

question of examination of these witnesses as Court

witness is concerned, that stage has still not arisen

because that stage would arise only after the petitioner

will closes his defence evidence.

9. The learned Special Judge has rightly observed that

defendant is free to summon these witnesses in his

defence. I do not find any reason to interfere with the

impugned order. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.

10. Since the main petition is dismissed no order is required

to be passed in the pending applications, as the same

also stand dism issed.

SEPTEMBER 28, 2011                            V.K. SHALI, J
mr