Central Bureau of Investigation v. Valiveti Venkata Narasima

Suchitra IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.54/2025

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH Plot No. 1& 2, Penha De Franca, Porvorim, Goa. … PETITIONER Versus

¶1VALIVETI VENKATA NARASIMA SASTRY, s/o late Siva Sastry, 66 years Occupation Oicer (Sclae I) Canara bank, Ponda Goa, Now posted at Canara Bank, Chataparru, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari, District, Andhar Pradesh

¶2SHRI YASIN K. SHAIKH, Kasim Haji Abas Shaikh, aged 49 years, present address Rabiyam-Yusuf Enlave, F-Block, 2nd Floor, Near Naga Masjid, Ponda Goa and Permanent Address A/P W No.20/636, Near Lande Hospital, Ichalkaranji kolhapur, Maharashtra. … RESPONDENTS Ms Asha Desai, Special PP for the Petitioner. Mr Dinesh Naik with Ms Shruthi Arabekar, Advocates for Respondent No.1. Mr Shashant Naik and Ms Vaibhavi Kanekar, Advocates for Respondent No.2. CORAM:

VALMIKI MENEZES, J. DATED: 22nd AUGUST 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶1he Registry to waive objections and register the matter. 2025:BHC-GOA:1599

¶2Rule. he rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶3his petition takes exception to order dated 06.12.2024 dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning un-cited witnesses. he application was iled in Special Case No.14/2013/D pending before the Additional District Judge and designated Prevention of Corruption Court, where charge-sheet dated 08.04.2013 alleging commission of ofences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)d of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, to have been committed by the respondents.

¶4he main contention raised in this petition is that, of the twelve witnesses sought to be now examined under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, witness nos.2 to 9 are signatories to panchanamas recording the specimen signatures of the accused and other writings on documents, which are part of the charge-sheet and the witnesses are named in the panchanamas; he other witness, who is the irst witness on the list of witnesses now sought to be examined, is the sanctioning authority, to prove sanction granted for prosecution of the accused. It is the case of the petitioner that the sanction order for prosecution of the accused, is part of the charge-sheet and only the names of the witnesses to prove these documents had been listed out from the list of witnesses while iling of the charge-sheet. It is the prosecution's case that this was realized during the cross-examination of the investigating oicer whose examination-in-chief has been completed, though he has not yet been cross-examined.

¶5Reliance is placed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the petitioner on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Natasha Singh v/s. CBI (State) reported in 2013 (5) SCC 741 and Vijay Kumar & Ors. v/s. State of U P AND ANR. reported in 2011 (8) SCC 136.

¶6he petition has been opposed by the respondents, who supported the impugned order mainly on the count that the defence would be now derailed, and allowing such witness to be examined would amount to illing in the lacuna in the case of the petitioner before the Trial Court. Reliance was placed by Mr Dinesh Naik, learned advocate for respondent no.1 on two judgments of the Supreme Court in Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2019) 14 SCC 328, Ashutosh Pathak v/s. he State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1341 and Shonika @ Sonika Ramesh Salunke v/s. he State of Maharashtra – Criminal Writ Petition No.1558 of 2021.

¶7Section 311 empowers the Court to, at any stage of the trial, allow production of evidence. he entire purpose of the provision of Section 311 is to empower a Court, after considering whether allowing such evidence caused prejudice to the party, to allow the party to produce the same, and to meet the ends of justice. In Swapan Kumar Chatterjee (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "10. he irst part of this section which is permissive gives purely discretionary authority to the criminal court and enables it at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code to act in one of the three ways, namely, (i) to summon any person as a witness; or (ii) to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; or (iii) to recall and re-examine any person already examined. he second part, which is mandatory, imposes an obligation on the court (i) to summon and examine or

(ii) to recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case.

¶11It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. he power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. he court has vide power under this section to even recall witnesses for re-examination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. he power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been iled as an abuse of the process of law."

¶8In the present case, the witness nos.2 to 9 are signatories to the panchanamas whereby specimen signatures of the accused and other witnesses were taken down and sent to a handwriting expert. None of the accused have set up a defence of denial of these specimen signatures or that the handwriting was not theirs. he evidence of the prosecution is not yet completed, and though the investigating oicer has led his examination in chief, his cross-examination is yet to commence. All documents in which the witnesses now sought to be examined are on record, form part of the charge-sheet. he accused would therefore not be caught by surprise, nor is it their case that the evidence now sought to be recorded at the behest of the pancha witnesses, to prove specimen signatures taken, is inconsistent with any of the defences taken whilst cross-examining the other witnesses.

¶9he irst witness sought to be examined, as arrayed in the application under Section 311, is the sanctioning authority. he sanction granted to the prosecution of the case forms part of the charge-sheet, and the name of the sanctioning authority, according to the prosecution was missed to be added in the list of witnesses though the name of the witness is known to the accused. his would be a relevant witness to determine, whether the sanction was properly granted, as the question of sanction goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the designated court examining a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. hough the defence has been raised that examining this witness would ill in the lacuna in the prosecution's case, it is not known in what manner, the examination of this witness would displace the defence of the accused, since the sanction granted by the sanctioning authority is part of the charge-sheet and the process and the material considered whilst granting of the sanction is stated therein. No prejudice would be caused to the accused if the sanctioning authority is examined, as the prosecution has still not closed its case.

¶10he Trial Court appears to have been swayed more by the delay in iling the application since the charge-sheet is of the year 2013 and the investigating oicer is now under examination. Apart from the delay in iling the application there are no other considerations referred to by the Trial Court or the relevance of the witness or in what manner the case of the accused would be prejudiced. he Trial Court has also not given any consideration as to whether examining the witnesses, who are signatories to documents which are part of the record, would in any manner derail the defence raised by the accused till this stage. As held by me, examination of these witnesses would in no manner prejudice the defence of the accused.

¶11Ashutosh Pathak (supra), cited by the respondents, on facts is distinguishable and does not apply to this case; In that case, the prosecution evidence had been completed and the statement under Section 313 of the accused/petitioner therein had been recorded. It was at that stage that the application under Section 311 was moved. In Shonika Salunke (supra), after the trial had concluded and inal arguments of the defence had been heard, the prosecution moved an application seeking to examine two additional witnesses. Considering the stage at which the application was moved, this Court upheld the dismissal of the same. As seen from the above facts, what is held in Shonika Salunke (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case, where the prosecution evidence is yet to be concluded.

¶12For these reasons, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the application dated 12.11.2024 under Section 311 is allowed. Prosecution/petitioner is permitted to examine the witnesses listed in the application. It would be preferable that if any of these witnesses are to be examined, such witnesses be examined prior to commencing the cross-examination of the investigating oicer, since the accused would be then in a better position to efectively cross-examine the investigating oicer with regard to the depositions of witnesses now relied on.

¶13he impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition which reads as under: "a) A writ of certiorari or in a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ this Hon'ble court deems it in the interest of justice thereby calling for the records and proceedings and after perusing the records quash and set aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the ld. Special Judge, North Goa at Panaji Goa in Special Case (SCCDC) No. 14/2013."

VALMIKI MENEZES, J. Signed by: SUCHITRA NANDAN SINGBAL Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 25/08/2025 17:31:40