Delhi High Court
Ashok Luthra & Ors. vs Cbi on 7 March, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 141/2012
% Judgment delivered on: 7th March, 2012
ASHOK LUTHRA & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Randhir Jain and
Mr. Dhananjay Jain, Advocates
versus
CBI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Standing
Counsel for CBI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of
proceeding in a case No.34/2009 based on RC 59(A)/1995 with title
CBI v. R.S. Sharma and Ors. Pending in the court of Special Judge,
CBI-01 (Central), Delhi.
2. During arguments, Mr. Randhir Jain, counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the challan was filed by CBI on 24.11.1998, charges
were framed and the case is pending for PE.
3. Learned counsel further submits that out of total 25 witnesses,
though 20 witnesses have already been examined, however, PW20 has
been recalled despite extensively cross-examined for over two hours
and discharged. Mr. V.K. Ojha, proxy counsel appearing on behalf of
the CBI sought one more opportunity which was accordingly granted
vide order dated 22.10.2011. Thereafter, on 22.11.2011, learned Public
Prosecutor appeared with I.O. of the case and stated that before
examining him, he would like to move an application for leading
secondary evidence. Accordingly, the matter was listed on 02.12.2011.
4. Learned counsel further submits that on 2.12.2011, learned
public prosecutor appearing on behalf of CBI sought adjournment as
the I.O. was busy in locating the documents. He further stated that I.O.
was posted in Calcutta and is present for the purpose.
5. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly objected
to the request made by learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that
the CBI has been dragging on the case and no progress is made.
6. It is further submitted that the case be adjourned sine die and to
be reviewed when prosecution would be in position to lead its
evidence. The request of Mr. Jain was declined by the learned Special
Judge, CBI.
7. In the facts & circumstances, I find force in the submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner and not disputed by the learned CBI
that the application moved by the CBI for leading secondary evidence
may be expeditiously decided.
8. Therefore, I direct the learned Special Judge, Central District,
Delhi to decide the aforesaid application within one month from the
next date fixed before the trial court.
9. I here make it clear, that if the learned trial Judge feels that the
CBI is not able to bring the documents sought for, then the appearance
of the petitioner may be exempted till then.
10. I further expect from the Special Judge to expeditiously decide
the matter as the issue pertains to the year 1990 and the challan was
filed by CBI way back in November, 1998.
11. CRL.M.C. 141/2012 is disposed of in above terms.
12. Since the main petition disposed of, Crl. M.A. 2457/2012
(Stay) does not require further adjudication, consequently the
instant application stands disposed of.
13. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 07, 2012
'raj'/jg
