Delhi High Court
Om Prakash Chautala vs The Central Bureau Of ... on 27 July, 2018
$~68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27.07.2018
+ CRL.M.C. 2646/2018
OM PRAKASH CHAUTALA ..... Petitioner
versus
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr. Harsh K. Sharma with Ms.
Viabhavi Sharma, Mr. Vivek Punia
and Mr. Rohit Gaur, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Spl.P.P. for CBI
with Mr. Philomon K., Ms. Kriti
Handa, Ms. Damini K., Ms. Hansika
Sahu, Advocates with SI Anil
Kapoor.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
27.07.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner impugns order dated 03.05.2018, whereby, the
application of the petitioner for summoning of the additional defence
documents and witnesses has been declined.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution
took nearly seven years for concluding the prosecution evidence. He
submits that the statement in defence of the petitioner under Section
313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 16.01.2018 and during the course of
preparation of the defence evidence, it transpired that these documents
and witnesses were necessary for the defence of the petitioner. It is
further submitted that no benefit would accrue to the petitioner by
delaying the trial as the petitioner is in custody.
3. The Trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner on
the premise that no explanation was rendered as to why such an
application was not moved at the earliest opportunity. Trial Court
further held that the defence could always produce the certified copies
of the documents and did not require any assistance of the Court for
production of the said evidence.
4. The additional documents that the petitioner had sought
production of are records of case FIR No.34/97, Police Station Sadar
Dabwalia and of the consequent proceedings emanating from the said
FIR as well as production of officers is connected with the said FIR.
The petitioner has further sought production of certain revenue
records of village Chautala and some individuals who are to prove
certain documents pertaining to the said land as well as the
partnership of the petitioner.
5. Perusal of the documents sought by the petitioner and list of
witnesses sought to be produced by the petitioner shows that they are
the records in custody of public authorities and most of the witnesses
are public officials. The fact that the petitioner can produce certified
copies of the record would not suffice as the petitioner, in any case,
would be required to summon the original records for proving the
certified copies. The petitioner is, admittedly, in custody so no benefit
would accrue to the petitioner in case the petitioner is permitted to
summon the record as well as the witnesses sought for.
6. Further, it is noticed that the prosecution evidence took
approximately seven years and the petitioner had stepped into the
witness box only in January 2018 and moved the application in April
2018.
7. I am of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the
prosecution in case the petitioner is permitted to summon the record
as well as the witnesses.
8. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 03.05.2018,
insofar as it relates to the rejection of the application for summoning
of the additional defence documents and witnesses, is set aside. The
application is allowed. The Trial Court shall summon the record and
witnesses sought for in the application.
9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
10. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
JULY 27, 2018/st SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
