D.K. Sinha, J.
1. The petitioner Md. Sayeed has preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing/ setting aside the impugned orders dated 23.8.2005, 21.12.2005 and 24.12.2005 passed in R.C. Case No. 5(A)/2000 by the Special Judge, C.B.I. (A.H.D.), Ranchi presently pending in the Court of Shri S.N. Prasad, Special Judge, C.B.I. (A.H.D.) with further direction to the said Court to allow the petitioner afresh to examine his defence witnesses through summons of the Court and to stay the further proceedings in the aforesaid case with the direction to the Trial Court below not to pronounce judgment till the disposal of the instant application.
2. Mr. K.K. Jha Kamal, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders dated 23.8.05, 21.12.2005 and 24.12.2005 vide Annexures 4,7 & 8 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. (A.H.D.), Ranchi in R.C. Case No. 5(A)/2000 suffer from legal infirmities, contrary to the provisions of Sections 233 and 315 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, apart from violation of principle of natural justice. Fair and impartial trial gives legal right to the accused persons for getting an opportunity of full defence especially when prosecuting agency fails to establish the allegations levelled against accused persons and the accused persons, to their wisdom, can exercise their right of self defence by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence on the relevant points.
3. The fact, related to the present case is, with respect to fraudulent withdrawal of money from different treasuries of Bihar on the strength of forged and fabricated allotment letters for making payments, suppliers who allegedly had not supplied the food, fodder, medicines and other equipments to the Animal Husbandry Department (in short A.H.D.) such as gloves, vaccine etc.
4. Learned Counsel further contended that from the allegations as aforesaid, it was necessary to bring evidence on the judicial record as to who were the persons who issued fraudulently and dishonestly fake and forged allotment letters in favour of the Project Officer, Frozem Semen Bank, Hotwar, Ranchi and other concerned places with the active assistance and connivance of accused officials of Animal Husbandry Department named in the charge-sheet. He further contended that it was required as to who actually had issued fictitious supply orders in the name of approved suppliers who in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, as alleged, submitted their false supply bills containing the false certificates of acknowledgment, authenticating the receipt of the materials as per supply bills.
5. Mr. K.K. Jha Kamal by enumerating the charges levelled against the petitioner Md. Sayeed and co-accused by the Central Bureau of Investigation tried to project that the charges of various nature against the accused cannot be proved or disproved unless important defence witnesses are examined in the court on behalf of the defence, much less the suppliers, technicians of the artificial insemination bank etc.
6. Advancing his argument Mr. Kamal submitted that by the order dated 7.4.2005 Special Judge (A.H.D.) had divided the defence witnesses category wise and discriminately picked up few witnesses from three category without rhyme and reason and rejected the list of witnesses of category No. 4 illegally against which Cr.M.P.No. 763 of 2005 was preferred and this Court vide order dated 10.8.2005 passed therein, set aside the impugned order dated 07.4.2005 and remanded back the case with a direction to consider the list of witnesses and documents afresh as per relevancy after hearing the parties and to prepare fresh list of defence witnesses proposed to be examined on behalf of the defence including the accused persons Under Section 315 Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. Mr. K.K. Jha 'Kamal' further submitted that pursuant to the receipt of the order dated 10.8.2005 passed by Jharkhand High Court in Cr.M.P. No. 763/05 no submission was made by the accused persons before the court below in respect of scrutinizing the list of witnesses as well as the documents rather the trial court below vide order dated 23.8.2005 allowed 85 witnesses to be examined on behalf of the defence as against 37 accused persons facing trial in the instant case within three months whimsically in contravention of the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court reported in 2002(2) Eastern Criminal Cases page 310. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka with reference to above propounded,
In its zeal to protect the right to speedy trial of an accused, the Court cannot devise and almost enact bars of limitation beyond which trial shall not proceed and arm of law shall lose its hold though the Legislation and the Statutes have not chosen to do so, Bars of limitation, judicially engrafted, are, no doubt, meant to provide a solution to the aforementioned problems. But a solution of this nature gives rise to greater problems like scuttling a trial without adjudication, stultifying access to justice and giving easy exit from the portals of justice. Such general remedial measures cannot be said to be apt solutions. For two reasons held, such bars of limitation uncalled for and impermissible.
8. Mr. Kamal submitted that in the present case the trial court below transgressed into domain of legislation by fixing limitation of three months for the examination of defence witnesses.
9. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned Counsel for the C.B.I. submitted that though by the order impugned dated 23.8.05 limitation of three months was given to the defence to adduce evidence but such limitation was never maintained by the trial court and a liberal view was taken by extending limitation time to time according opportunities to the defence to produce witnesses. As a matter of fact the prosecution produced all its material witnesses promptly and diligently whereas the defence tried to delay the disposal by all means.
10. Before arriving at any conclusion it is imperative to refer the order passed by a Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P.No. 763/05 on 10.8.05, in Dr. Junul Bhengraj and 15 Ors. v. The State through the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. (AHD), SPE the Court held that:
In my view, it may not be necessary for the defence to examine all the firms which had allegedly supplied cattle feed, medicines, etc. nor would be it necessary to examine all the Technical Assistants in the AHD as also the beneficiaries of the Frozen Semen Bank scheme, but the matter requires a re-appraisal. As far as other witnesses are concerned, they are not many in number and can be examined relatively quickly.
However, the learned court below appears to have committed an error in directing that the list of 'documents submitted on behalf of the accused under Section 22A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, could be taken up for consideration after conclusion of the evidence of the defence witnesses and examination of some of the accused persons under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such a course of action could have been taken only if all the documents cited on behalf of the accused were admitted into evidence without proof.
It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the examination of all the witnesses, both on behalf of the prosecution as well as defence, having been closed, the matter has been set down for arguments. While one can appreciate the urgency of the matter, a balance will have to be struck between the prosecution and the defence so as to ensure a fair trial of the accused.
In such circumstances, the order passed by the learned court below on 7th April, 2005 is set aside with a direction to the learned court below to re-examine the relevance of the list of the witnesses and documents submitted on behalf of the accused persons and to pass a fresh order in keeping with such exercise expeditiously, so that not much time is lost in the process, and the trial can be brought to an end quickly. Needless to say, adjournments must be avoided and the trial must proceed on the dates set for the said purpose.
11. It is, therefore, clear that no time limit was imposed upon the court below for conclusion of the defence evidence and the court below misconstrued the spirit of the above order though it was directed to pass a fresh order in keeping with such exercise expeditiously so that no much time is lost in the process and the trial could be brought to an end quickly.
12. The Court finds from the perusal of paragraph Nos. 30 & 31 of the order impugned dated 23.8.2005 passed by the Special Judge wherein it has been held that:
The Hon'ble Court pleased to observe in the order dated 10.08.2005 passed in Cr.M.P.No. 763/05 that: .to pass a fresh order in keeping with such exercise expeditiously so that not much time is lost in the process, and the trial can be brought to an end quickly. Needless to say, adjournment must be avoided and the trial must proceed on the dates set for the said purpose.
In view of the above observation of the Hon'ble Court, the accused petitioners are directed to conclude the examination of the defence witnesses within three months.
13. But the said limitation was never followed rather lattitude to the defence was given from time to time to produce the defence witnesses. The Court finds that the petitioner for the first time presented a list of the witnesses on 21.12.2005 to whom he proposed to examine on behalf of the defence though the three months' time had already expired on 1.12.2005 but by the order impugned dated 21.12.2005 the court below considering the submission of the accused petitioner extended the time up-to 23.12.2005 with the observation that the petitioner had never moved earlier for issuance of summons against 13 witnesses and only two days were left for the conclusion of the defence witnesses. The Court further observed that the witnesses who were proposed to be examined on behalf of the defence were not posted in the same office and therefore, it was not possible to issue summons to all the witnesses for its service report which indicates that the petitioner was not inclined to produce his witness and his intention was reflected to prolong the case and his petition which was filed on 21.12.2005 was rejected with the liberty that if the petitioner so desired may produce his witness on 23.12.2005. However, on 23.12.2005 as many as 9 witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the defence and were discharged. The order-sheet dated 23.12.2005, impugned, discloses that a petition was filed on behalf of the defence for the extension of at least 15 days time for production of defence witness but since it was not agitated with the endorsement made therein, the petition for extension of time was rejected and the defence evidence was closed fixing the date on 24.12.2005 for argument.
14. It is further evident from the order dated 24.12.2005 that the case was fixed on day to day basis from 1.9.2005 to 23.12.2005 but the defence did not take keen interest to produce all the defence witnesses. It is further indicated from the said order that the petitioner accused Md. Sayeed and other accused namely Rama Shankar Singh, Surendra Nath Sinha and Basant Kumar Sinha were earlier allowed to be examined under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but they did not choose to depose.
15. From the above orders passed by the trial court below it is crystal clear that the limitation of three months imposed by the trial court below was not maintained rather opportunity was given to the defence for the production and examination of the defence witnesses on day to day basis and when the trial court found that the intention of the accused persons was to linger the case, the defence evidence was closed after giving adequate opportunity to the defence. This Court do not find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that there was violation of principles of natural justice by not according sufficient time to the defence for production of the witnesses and therefore, there being no merit in the present petition, it is dismissed.