- (1.)This revision application assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI for Grater Mumbai, on an application for summoning the defence witnesses (Exhibit-1581) in Sessions Case No.1146 of 2013, whereby the learned Special Judge was persuaded to partly allow the application to the extent of examination of one witness, namely, Abhay Suresh Pandit, out of 39 witnesses, who were cited by name and/or designation, by the applicant - accused no.1.
(2.)The revision application arises in the backdrop of the following facts:
(a) The applicant is facing prosecution alongwith eight other co-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 , 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 for having committed murder of one Pawanraje Nimbalkar (the deceased) in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy. Initially the crime was registered at Kalamboli Police Station vide CR No.I-220 of 2006. The widow of deceased, namely, Anandibai (PW-76) fled Writ Petition No.81 of 2008 before this court. Pursuant to an order passed by this Court the investigation came to be transferred to CBI, SCB, Mumbai - respondent no.1 herein. CBI registered crime vide CBI Case No.BS-1/2009/S/0001. The investigation commenced. Charge-sheet came to be lodged against the accused.

(b) At the trial, the prosecution had cited 185 witnesses. The prosecution has examined 127 witnesses including Anadibai (PW-76). After the prosecution closed its evidence and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) came to be recorded, the applicant - accused no.1 preferred an application (Exhibit-1581) to examine the defence witnesses and seek production of the documents through those cited witnesses, under the provisions of Section 233 of the Code.

(c) The applicant asserted that the examination of those 39 witnesses, and production of the documents sought through those witnesses, were necessary for a just decision of the case. Anandibai (PW-76), who was confronted with the questions and documents pertaining to the prosecution initiated against the deceased and his family members, the various scams in which the deceased was involved; and the persons with whom the deceased had inimical relations, gave false and evasive replies. The applicant thus desired to bring all those facts to demonstrate the position in life of the deceased, Anandibai (PW- 76) and their family members. The said facts have a material bearing on the veracity of the prosecution case and the innocence of the accused. The Central Bureau of Investigation has recorded the statements of few of the witnesses (proposed to be examined by the accused). However, those witnesses were dishonestly withheld by the prosecution. Hence, the applicant be permitted to examine those witnesses in his defence.

(d) The prosecution resisted the application. It was contended that the application was fled with ulterior motive to delay the trial and thereby defeat the ends of justice. None of the witnesses, whom the applicant intended to examine, nor any of the documents, of which the applicant sought production, is relevant for the determination of the guilt of the applicant and co-accused. It was asserted that the application was vague and ambiguous as well. The prosecution endeavoured to demonstrate that each of the witnesses sought to be examined and doucments produced has no relevance whatsoever with the facts in issue. Thus, the prosecution prayed for rejection of the application.

(e) The learned Special Judge, after hearing the learned Special Prosecutor and the advocate for the accused, partly allowed the application of accused no.1 (Exhibit-1581). The learned Special Judge was of the view that the trial being for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 120B of the Code, the witnesses proposed to be examined and documents sought were not at all relevant. The endeavour of the applicant was to delay the trial. The thrust of the applicant on bringing the antecedents of the deceased, on the record of the Court, was of no assistance to advance the defence of the accused. It was further observed that since most of the documents, the production of which was sought, were in the nature of the public documents like, copies of the FIR and charge-sheet lodged against the deceased and the reports of enquiries conducted against the deceased, the applicant could produce those documents on record. For that purpose, the examination of the witnesses was not warranted. The learned Special Judge, however, noted that the statement of Mr. Abhay Suresh Pandit was recorded by Kalamboli Police. However he was not examined by the prosecution. As there was an element of the said person being a witness to the occurrence, he could throw light on the occurrence. Hence, the learned Special Judge allowed the application to the extent of examining Mr. Abhay Suresh Pandit as a defence witness. Thus, witness summons was directed to be issued to Mr. Pandit.

(3.)Being aggrieved by and dissatisfed with the impugned order, the applicant - accused no.1 has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.