Interim Order 38

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-02,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided Over by:- Ashish Aggarwal, DHJS
CC No.30/2021
State v Dinesh Kumar & Ors.
FIR No.11/2016
PS Anti-Corruption Branch
10.12.2024
Present : Sh. Manoj Kumar Garg, Ld. Public Prosecutor for State.
Accused Dinesh Kumar with counsel Sh. Sanjay Suri.
Accused Rajinder Kumar Bansal with counsel Sh. K. K. Jha, Sh.
Praveen Bansal and Ms. Preeti Kumari.
The application under Section 311 of Cr.PC filed on behalf of State is
pending. The application is taken up for hearing.
By the said application, the Ld. Public Prosecutor for State has sought
permission to examine PWs HC Ramesh Chand and M. L. Meena. It is stated that PW
HC Ramesh Chand was earlier considered to be a witness whose testimony would have
been repetitive but it has now been realized that the testimony is necessary for proving
the case since the witness is likely to depose regarding taking of samples to FSL.
Regarding PW M. L. Meena, it is stated that he has by error not been cited in the list of
witnesses.
The application is opposed by Ld. Defence counsels on the ground that HC
Ramesh Chand had been dropped by order of the Court dated 17.02.2023 and that the
prosecution cannot seek review of the said order.
I have heard submissions.
-- 1 of 2 --
I have gone through the order dated 17.02.2023. The said order uses the
expression “for the time being” while deciding not to examine PW HC Ramesh Chand at
that time. It appears from the order that the Court felt that witnesses whose testimony is
unnecessarily repetitive need not be summoned. However, since there are aspects which
are disputed and which the witness is likely to depose about, and which are not repetitive,
in my opinion, the witness ought to be summoned and examined. Also, PW M. L. Meena
whose name was inadvertently left out must be examined.
I am guided by the following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Anr v. State of Gujarat and Ors. Crl. Appeal No.
446-449 of 2004 decided on 08.03.2006:
"The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there
may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either
party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving
ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from
either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential
to the just decision of the case"
For just decision of the case, the application is allowed.
It is directed that the witnesses mentioned in the application be summoned
as prosecution witnesses, for their examination on 22.01.2025.
(Ashish Aggarwal)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
10.12.2024
-- 2 of 2 --