- (1.)THE petitioner is the fifth accused in C. C. No. 2 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Special Judge for cbi Cases, Chennai. The trial in the above case has been commenced and admittedly so far 28 witnesses have been examined. At that stage, the prosecution filed a petition to receive certain documents as additional documents stating that the prosecution had already cited list witness No. 20, g. Hanumantha Reddy, MRO, Nizamabad in this case and he had stated in his 161 statement that no such ration card was issued in the name of Shri Aravind Gohel and he further stated that he sent letter No. A1/527/2003 to the SP, CBI, acb, Chennai and due to oversight, the above letter was not filed in this case along with the charge sheet even though the said fact was mentioned by the said witness in his 161 statement and copy of the 161 statement was already furnished to the accused.
(2.)THE said petition was opposed by the petitioner herein inter alia contending that at the belated stage the cbi cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna that was exposed during the cross examination and the prosecution should not be allowed to go on adding witnesses to fill up the lacuna as they like and they should not be permitted to produce the documents which are created at a belated stage. In support of the above said contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the counter itself has cited (a) AIR 1991 SC 1346 (Mohanlal Shanji Sam Vs. Union of India) (b) AIR 1979 SC 677 (SC) (Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of AP) (c) 2001 (4) RCR (Criminal) 589 (Mahendra Lal Das Vs. State of Bihar) (d) 2002 (3) Crime 333 (Hari Singh Vs. State of Haryana (PJ Haryana High Court)) (e) 1981 Crl LJ NOC 3 (AP) (Narayana Rao Vs. State of AP (f) 1991 Excise Law Time (Aboobakkar Vs. Customs Department)
(3.)BUT the learned Special Judge by a one line order allowed the petition namely, " Heard. Petition allowed. " Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above revision.