JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and
order dated 8.4.2013 in Criminal Misc. Case No.1324 of 2013, passed by
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, by way of which it has affirmed
the order dated 16.3.2013, passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the
application filed by the appellant under Section 311 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.'),
observing that examination of the witnesses sought to be examined by
the appellant-accused was in fact unnecessary, and would in no way
assist in the process of arriving at a just decision with respect to
the case.
(3.)Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under:
A. An FIR dated 10.8.1998 was registered under Section 120B read
with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') and Section 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1988') against the appellant and
other accused persons. After the conclusion of the investigation, a
chargesheet was filed on 19.7.2001 by the investigating agency, i.e.,
CBI against Smt. Rita Singh (A-1), Mrs. Natasha Singh (A-2),
appellant, and Mr. Y.V. Luthra (A-3), a Public Servant.
B. In view thereof, charges were framed by the learned Trial Court
on 5.5.2003 against all the three accused.
C. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 52 witnesses in
the course of over 50 hearings and subsequent thereto, the statement
of the appellant-accused was recorded on 28-29.1.2013 and 5.2.2013.
The appellant, in her defence examined only one witness, namely,
Sudhir Kumar (DW-2) and after proving certain documents closed her
defence on 18.2.2013. The other accused, namely, Mr. Y.V. Luthra
concluded his defence on 19.2.2013, after examining two defence
witnesses, namely, Mr. A.K. Saxena and Mr. Satpal Arora. The Trial
Court thereafter, fixed the date for hearing final arguments as
5.3.2013. The appellant preferred an application under Section 311
Cr.P.C. on 5.3.2013 for permission to examine three witnesses. The
said application was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated
16.3.2013, against which the Criminal Misc. petition filed by the
appellant was also dismissed by the High Court, by way of impugned
order dated 8.4.2013.
Hence, this appeal.