- (1.) These two applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court for quashing of the impugned order dated 11th December, 2013 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Court No. 1, Ghaziabad in Special Case No. 49 of 2011 on various grounds, in particular, questioning the authority of the Court below to prohibit the counsel for the applicant-accused from confronting the prosecution witnesses during cross-examination with statements previously recorded by the C.B.I. and the Local Police. The case in hand is the affectionately tolerated G.P.F. Scam in the District Court at Ghaziabad in which some of the accused-applicants occupied a seemingly respectful post. I have heard Sri D.S. Mishra alongwith Sri Abhishek Kumar for the accused-applicants and having heard them, it appears that the larger question which is posed is in the background as to "Who will judge the Judges". The applicants though in a guarded way, virtually pose this question inquiringly, but respectfully, so as to virtually test the fairness of the trial Judge, and the impartiality of this Court as well, to allow them to put questions during cross-examination to the witnesses for the prosecution, who are none other than, accused turned approvers. The applicants crave for a fair trial constitutionally protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as they feel hurt by the impugned order of the Court below, that denies them access to facts, which they presume may be forthcoming on cross-examination to their aid. This, they seem to expect, as anticipation is the magnifying glass of coming events. This order is however no attempt to either forecast their strategy or to uncover their intentions, but the trial has arrived at a stage when the accused assert such rights as conferred by the provisions of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Sri Daya Shanker Mishra, with his reputed vigorous oratory in vernacular Hindi, has earnestly pleaded that the trial Court has adopted an unfair approach by denying the applicants the opportunity of a comprehensive cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses on the strength of their previous statements, so as to invite the Court's attention to possible contradictions that may be material, by virtue of any positive statement or otherwise, and also connected with relevant facts relating to the case. He contends that a prohibitory approach of the trial Court is severely injurious for a fair trial and the order impugned outrageously disrupts fair procedure as guaranteed to the defence under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
(2.) He submits that it amounts to abandoning a legal requirement by the Court for no plausible and sustainable reason. It is not only a denial of the rights of the accused-applicant, but also brings about an abrupt end to a legal process that is wanted by law to be continued, so as to uncover correct facts and bring the trial to a rational conclusion. The impugned order in his submission sweeps off a vital link of the trial required to be religiously observed under the statute by the Court.
(3.) Sri Mishra and Sri Abhishek Kumar have relied on 13 judgments through a compilation handed down to the Court that are as follows to substantiate their submissions: 1. C.B.I. v. State of U.P. and others, Application under Section 482 No. 8128 of 2012. 2. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, 1978 AIR(SC) 1025 3. Mahabir Mandal v. State of Bihar, 1972 AIR(SC) 1331 4. V.K. Sasikala v. State represented by Superintendent, : LAWS (SC) 2012-9-58 5. R. Shaji v. State of Kerala, : LAWS (SC) 2013-2-4 6. Purshottam Jethanand v. State of Kutch, 1954 AIR(SC) 700 7. Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, : TLPC-1946-0-333 8. Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., 1959 AIR(SC) 1012 9. Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, : LAWS (SC)-2000-9-180 10. Lalchand v. State of Haryana, LAWS (SC)-1983-10-37 11. Noorkhan v. State of Rajasthan, 1964 AIR(SC) 286 12. Sudevanand v. State, : LAWS (SC) 2012-1-37 13. Birendra Chandra De and another v. State, 1957 LawSuit(Gau) 13;