Ram Tahal Mahto vs Union Of India

Heard Mr. Rahul Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

This revision has been filed for the following relief:

"For setting aside the order dated 19.09.2019 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No.1044/2019 (whereby and whereunder the ld. Court below has been pleased to reject the petition of the petitioner filed u/s 311 of Cr.P.C for recalling the P.W. -7 & P.W.22) filed in R.C. Case No.01(S) /2010 AHD - R dated 10.05.2010 registered u/s 120 B r/w 420, 468, 471 of I.P.C (later on chargesheet has been submitted u/s 120B r/w 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC & also section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988) which is now presently pending before the learned Court of AJC - XVI - cum - Spl. Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that P.W. 7 and P.W.22 could not be cross-examined by the petitioner when they appeared for their examination before the learned court below as the petitioner was not informed about the attendance of P.W.7 and P.W.22. He further submits that in such circumstances, a petition under Section 311 Cr. P.C was filed for recall of those witnesses for the purposes of their cross-examination.

Learned counsel for the CBI on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that P.W. 7 and P.W. 22 were examined by the learned court below on 23.11.2017 and 25.04.2019 respectively. He further submits that so far as P.W. 22 is concerned, the defence had declined to cross examine this witness and consequently the witness was discharged. So far as P.W. 7 is concerned, he was also discharged due to non-appearance of the defence for their cross examination and this had taken place as back as in the year 2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the defence witness has also been closed by the learned court below and it is fixed for the argument of the parties. The learned counsel for the CBI submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and accordingly, the same does not call for any interference under the revisional jurisdiction.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstance of this case, this Court finds that P.W. 7 was examined as back as on 23.11.2017, but no steps were ever taken by the petitioner to cross examine the said witness. It is not in dispute that P.W. 7 was discharged due to non-appearance of the defence for his cross examination. So far as P.W. 22 is concerned, it is apparent from the impugned order itself that the defence had refused to cross examine P.W. 22. This Court finds that the impugned order has been passed after considering the facts and circumstances of this case and it has been recorded in the impugned order that a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C was filed only to delay the proceedings. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that no case for recall of the witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C has been made out by the petitioner and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the revisional jurisdiction. The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX.