- (1.) THIS application is directed against the order dated 19/06/2013, passed by the learned Special JudgeIV, CBI,(AHD), Ranchi in R.C. Case No. 20 (A)/1996, whereby and whereunder application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., for summoning one witness namely, Bimlesh Prasad Sinha, the then S.P., Rural, Ranchi, as Court witness, was rejected.
(2.) THE case, which has given rise to this petition, relates to illegal withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 35,66,42086/ from the Treasury of Chaibasa in the year 199495, was instituted for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 460, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477 A, 201/511 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against number of accused persons including the petitioner. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted in the year 1997. Upon which, cognizance of the various offences under the IPC and P.C. Act, was taken against the accused persons, on 24/06/1997. Almost, after 3 years, charges were framed against the accused persons in the year 2000. The prosecution took almost 12 years in examining its 350 witnesses. Upon closure of the prosecution case, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereupon, accused persons started adducing their defence witnesses. The petitioner initially submitted a list of 79 witnesses to be examined as defence witnesses. However, that list, under the order of the Court, was shortened to 29, who were examined. After the defence witnesses were examined, except in case of the petitioner, the prosecution started its argument and concluded it on 10/12/2012. Thereupon, arguments were advanced on behalf of the accused persons other then petitioner. The arguments on behalf of 43 out of 45 accused persons got concluded on 25/02/2013. Meanwhile, the petitioner had moved to this Court as some of the witnesses had not been allowed to be examined. On account of some order being passed by this Court, the arguments could not be advanced on behalf of the petitioner. However, the order was passed, the prosecution argued its case against the petitioner from 22/04/2013 to 15/05/2013. Thereafter, the case was posted on 16/05/2013 for arguments to be advanced on behalf of the petitioner on day to day basis. Accordingly, the arguments were advanced from 16/05/2013 to 31/05/2013 for 8 days. After that no pairvi was made on behalf of the petitioner for 6 days and, as such, arguments could also not be advanced. However, on 10/06/2013, an order was passed that if on the next date arguments would not be advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it shall be closed. On 12/06/2013, an application was filed to the effect that one Bimlesh Pd. Sinha, the then S.P., Rural, Ranchi, be summoned to be examined as Court witness. That application was rejected vide order dated 19/06/2013, after holding that the evidence of that witness never appears to be essential for just decision of the case. That order is under challenge.
(3.) MR . Surendra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that one of the charges, which were levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner in connivance with other accused persons, did not cause of registration of a case against the erring officials of AHD and others, rather caused narrowing the scope of the investigation in Vigilance P.S.Case No. 34/1990 and did not take any action. Further charge is that Dr. Jagarnath Mishra, the leader of opposition had written a letter dated 23/08/1990 to the Chief Minister with a request that the investigation of the said vigilance case should be confined to the Members of Central Purchase Committee only and be not extended to the other officials concerning AHD, Ranchi. The letter of Dr. Jagarnath Mishra was marked to the Vigilance Bureau by the Chief Minister. In the Vigilance Bureau the letter of Dr. Jagarnath Mishra was delivered as per the direction of Shri D.P.Ojha, the then I.G., Vigilance to the Investigating Officer of the case under acknowledgment and, thereafter, no investigation was carried out against the AHD officials of Ranchi. The prosecution in order to prove the charges as stated above, had cited certain witnesses including Bimlesh Pd. Sinha, as charge sheet witness no. 79, but the prosecution gave up his examination for the reason as has been assigned by the prosecution that on that point number of witnesses have been examined but the fact is that the statement of the said witness supports the case of the petitioner as he, in his statement as recorded under Section 161 Cr. Cr.P.C., has categorically stated that neither the letter of Dr. Jagarnath Mishra nor the letter of Vijay Kumar Choudhary, MLA had any bearing in the investigation and, as such, no cognizance of these letters were taken by him. Tgherefore, his evidence was quite necessary for demolishing one of the charges as stated above, but the Court below without giving anxious consideration upon it, rejected the prayer and, as such, the order impugned is fit to be set aside.;