9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... praying inter alia for recalling PW-9, Inspector Prem Nath, CBI ACB, New Delhi and PW-12, SI Manish Kumar Upadhaya, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, was allowed. 2. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Special Judge, CBI erred in allowing the aforesaid application filed by the Respondent as such a permission would amount to permitting the Respondent to fill up the lacunae in its case, which had arisen after evidence had been led by the Petitioner in his defense, and hence, would amount to nullifying such evidence. He further states that the procedure prescribed for visitors at the office of the CBI is clear, and no clarification is required on the same, especially in light of the depositions of PW-9 as recorded on 5.9.2009 and PW-12 as recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord. 5. A perusal of Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure makes it abundantly clear that the said provision empowers the court to summon or examine or recall any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. In other words, while exercising such a power, what is required to be seen is that all that which may assist the court to ultimately arrive at the truth and to reach a just and fair decision, after obtaining proper proof of facts, should be placed before the court. The aforesaid power vested in the Court is unfettered. 6. In the case of Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan(supra), the Supreme Court has made a detailed examination of the law related to Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such a witness is considered essential for the purpose of conducting a proper and fair trial. The submission of the counsel for the Respondent that in the present case such circumstances did exist is to be seen in the specific context of the case. 8. It is an undisputed position that the Petitioner has already placed on record extracts of the visitors register maintained by the CBI at its reception for the relevant dates. It is also not disputed by the counsel for the Petitioner that the defense has already led its evidence which is on record. The question of filling up any lacunae by the CBI does not arise, as the plea of the Petitioner that the aforesaid witnesses did not visit the office of the CBI on the relevant dates, has been set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
