@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Sunil Gaur, J.@mdashPetitioner is facing trial in Criminal Complaint No. 42/01 titled as CBI v. Rita Singh and Ors. for the offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 read with Section 120-B of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. At the stage of final hearing, petitioner had preferred an application u/s 311 of Cr.P.C. for getting examined Mr. B.B. Sharma, DGM (Operation & Administration) of Mesco Airlines, Mr. S.S. Batra, the then Company Secretary, who had purportedly signed letter of 1st March, 1996 from M/s. Mideast (India) Pvt. Ltd. to Mr. B.B. Huria, G.M. (IFCI), requesting issuance of NOC, and Handwriting Expert to establish that letter of 3rd May, 1996 (Ex. P-32/A) purportedly signed by petitioner does not bear her signatures. Trial court vide impugned order of 16th March, 2013 dismissed petitioner''s aforesaid application by observing that the witnesses sought to be got examined by petitioner as accused are not necessary and shall in no way assist in just decision of the case.
2. At the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioner had vehemently contended that Section 311 of Cr.P.C. mandates permitting of fresh evidence if it is necessary for just decision of this case. To assert so, reliance was placed upon decisions in
3. Learned counsel for respondent had drawn the attention of this Court to paragraphs No. 10 to 12 of the impugned judgment to support it and it was submitted that examination of second witness in respect of documents recovered vide panchnama Ex. PW-11/1 (D-26) is just multiplicity of evidence and even if the witness Mr. B.B. Sharma sought to be got examined in respect of the aforesaid documents had signed the panchnama and not the recovered documents, it makes no difference. Regarding examining Mr. S.S. Batra as defence witness, it was asserted by respondent''s counsel that his deposition is totally unnecessary as it is not disputed on behalf of prosecution that Mr. S.S. Batra had written a letter of 1st March, 1996 to Mr. B.B. Huria. As regards examination of Handwriting Expert as defence witness in respect of signatures of petitioner on letter of 3rd May, 1996 (Ex. PW-32/A), it was argued by respondent''s counsel that petitioner-accused has not denied in her statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. regarding her signing the letter (Ex. PW-32/A) and so, petitioner''s application is misconceived and it has been filed just to delay the trial of this case, which is pending for more than a decade and so, this petition ought to be dismissed.
4. Both the sides have been heard. Impugned order, copy of charge-sheet and the material on record as well as the decisions cited have been meticulously considered and thereupon, I find that it is beyond any dispute that an accused has a right to fair trial and the rules of procedure designed to ensure justice have to be scrupulously followed and that delay alone cannot come in the way of administration of justice. It is equally true that an accused knows how to prove his defence, and what should be the nature of evidence is a matter which should not be left to the discretion of the court, but the issue whether the evidence sought to be led by invoking Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is essential to the just decision of the case falls within the jurisdiction of the courts to determine.
5. The objective underlined in Section 311 of Cr.P.C. 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 evidence led by the parties. The determinative factor is whether the evidence sought to be led is essential for the just decision of the case or not. The discretion conferred by Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised judiciously.
6. Having noted the legal position emerging from the decisions cited, this Court has scrutinized the impugned order and finds that the trial court has succinctly dealt with the relevance of three witnesses sought to be got examined by petitioner in paragraphs No. 10 to 12 of the impugned order, which are as under:
The first witness sought to be examined on behalf of applicant is Mr. B.B. Sharma, who was a witness to the panchnama prepared by the Income tax department, during raid at the premises of Mideast (India) Ltd. in February, 1997.
In the brief summary, submitted on behalf of applicant, it is stated that as per the allegations, photocopies of the letter head of IFCI Ex. PW11/5, allegedly having the photocopies of the impression signatures of accused Y.V. Luthra, were recovered during the search and the panchnama Ex. PW11/1 (D-26) was prepared. It is claimed that the details of the papers seized are not mentioned in the panchnama and what was mentioned in the annexures (Inventory) attached to the same and in the inventories, recovery of the bunch marked Ex. PW11/5 has not been mentioned. Mr. B.B. Sharma has signed the panchnama and he is sought to be examined on behalf of applicant to the effect that bunch Ex. PW11/5, was not recovered from the office of MESCO. As per the annexures to the panchnama, no details of the documents have been given and only document numbers are given which are numbering more than a thousand and the documents in question appearing at S. No. 91 out of total groupings of 106. The witness has not signed the inventory nor the documents in question, which were seized, having signed only the panchnama and so, simply by stating that a particular set of document which formed part of the document seized, as per panchnama, were not recovered, amounts to nothing, unless the witness is having record or proof of the documents which were seized. As regards the signatures of the witness not appearing on the documents seized, particularly Ex. PW11/5, the issue can be argued on behalf of the applicant/accused and in the light of the facts, evidentiary value can be put to the deposition of PW-11, the Income tax officer, by whom raid was conducted and the documents seized. Deposition of Mr. B.B. Sharma in the circumstances, shall make no material difference and the witness is not at all necessary for the just decision of the case.
The second witness sought to be examined on behalf of applicant is Mr. S.S. Batra and as per the allegations, he had signed a letter dated 01.03.96 addressed to Mr. B.B. Huria (PW-2) for issuance of first NOC and said letter was handed over by him to Mr. B.B. Huria. In the brief summary, it is claimed that neither Mr. S.S. Batra nor of the accused persons ever contacted accused Y.V. Luthra for issuance of NOC and thus, it is claimed that the evidence is necessary to negate the evidence of criminal conspiracy. Mr. S.S. Batra deposing that he had not met accused Y.V. Luthra for issuance of NOC amounts to nothing, when it is not the case of the prosecution and no evidence to that effect has been adduced that Mr. S.S. Batra had ever met accused Y.V. Luthra, for giving shape to the criminal conspiracy. Mr. S.S. Batra had written a letter dated 01.03.96 addressed to Mr. B.B. Huria and this fact is not disputed on behalf of prosecution. Whether or not other co-accused had met Mr. Y.V. Luthra, Mr. S.S. Batra would not be in a position to testify. At the most, he can testify that at a particular place at a particular time where he was present, none of the accused persons were present, but that is not the purpose of deposition of Mr. S.S. Batra. This witness is totally immaterial and unnecessary.
As regards the examination of handwriting expert, it is in regard to signature of applicant on Ex. PW32/A, letter dated 03.05.96 at pt. Q7 which as per the case of the prosecution is that of the applicant. In the application moved, the applicant has stated that in her statement u/s. 313 CrPC, she had specifically stated that signatures appearing on the NOC dated 03.05.% Ex. PW32/A, although looked like that of her signatures, but same do not belong to her. The handwriting expert is sought to be examined to establish that those questioned signatures are not of applicant Natasha Singh. In reply to question no. 89, in statement u/s. 313 CrPC, the applicant Natasha Singh stated that signatures at pt. Q7 on Ex. PW32/A appeared to look of hers but those do not belong to her as she does not remember having put any signatures on any document, certified to be true copy. In a way, the applicant is stating the signatures at point Q-7 on Ex. PW32/A looked like that of her but since she does not remember having put her signatures on any such document, so, same does not belong to her. PW-40 Rabi Lal Thapa has testified as to the signatures, as that of applicant Natasha Singh on Ex. PW32/A, as well as his own writing on the document and also deposed as regards to having faxed the documents on the asking of the applicant. Even otherwise, the deposition by an handwriting expert by itself, cannot be conclusive proof. So, merely because PW-32 Sh. S.L. Mukhi, being an handwriting expert, had come to the conclusion that questioned signatures appearing at point Q-7 on Ex. PW32/A resemble with the specimen signature of the applicant, a conclusion or deposition to the contrary, of another handwriting expert, shall in no way strengthen or weaken the evidentiary value of an handwriting expert, which has to be considered in the light of attending facts and circumstances, under which the questioned documents were signed.
After having heard learned senior counsel for petitioner, I find no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the trial court as noted hereinabove. The evidence sought to be led by petitioner-accused is not at all essential for the just decision of this case. Consequently, this petition is dismissed while refraining to comment upon the merits of this case lest it may prejudice either side at trial.
