C.B.I v. Dileep Saxena and ors., is common. Hence

Judgment

2. Central Bureau Of Investigation, Through Special P.P. Anil Choudhary Son Of Shri Ramsukh, R/o 28, Adarsh Nagar, Lalsagar, Jodhpur (Rajasthan). Connected With ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3654/2023 Dilip Saxena S/o Late Sh. Hari Saxena, Aged About 65 Years, R/o 601, Dadabari Extension Scheme, Opp. Modi College, Kota (Raj). Presently Reseeding At A-1302, Mahima Nirvana, Reality, Mahapura, Jaipur 302026 (Raj). Versus ----Petitioner Central Bureau Of Investigation, Through Special P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Shekhawat Mr. Dushyant Mr. Ashu Singh, (in Crl.M.P. No.4704/2023) Ms. Aradhana Swami Ms. Vandana Sharma (in Crl.M.P. No.3654/2023) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 22/08/2025

1. In both these petitions, order impugned dated 12.05.2023, passed by Special Judge, C.B.I., No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur, in Sessions case No. 20/2018 (06/2016): C.B.I. Vs. Dileep Saxena and ors., is common. Hence, with the consent of the [2025:RJ-JP:33335] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-4704/2023] counsel for both the parties, both petitions have been heard together and would stand decided by this common order.

2. It appears that both the petitioners are facing a criminal prosecution for the offences under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 120-B of IPC. At the stage of defence evidence, accused petitioner -Rajib Pal prayed to summon three witnesses namely Ramdhan Mahavar, Ramavtar Meena and Krishan Gopal Saran for his defence. The trial Court vide order dated 12.05.2023 permitted to summon Ramdhan Mahavar, being relevant witness for defence evidence, and denied summoning of other two witnesses with findings that same are not relevant piece of evidence for defence purpose, whereagainst accused-petitioner has filed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.4704/2023.

3. Similarly, at the stage of defence, another co-accused Dilip Saxena also prayed to summon as many as 7 witnesses in his defence evidence. List of 7 witnesses is available on record at page No.9 in the form of document (Annx.1). Out of these 7 witnesses, witnesses at serial No. 1 to 4 namely, (1) Smt. Renu Kumari, (2) Mr. M.K. Devrajan, (3) Director General of Mines Safety, and (4) Superintendent of Police, CBI, Jaipur, have been denied to be summoned but witnesses at serial No. 5 to 7 namely, (5) Mr. Rajiv Choudhary, (6) the Branch Manager of Baroda Rajasthan Regional Rural Bank and (7) Mining Engineer, Jodhpur have been permitted to be summoned by the trial Court vide order dated 12.05.2023 whereagainst petitioner has preferred S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 3654/2023. [2025:RJ-JP:33335] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-4704/2023]

4. Having heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Special Public Prosecutor for CBI as also from perusal of the impugned order, it has transpired that the trial Court has assigned exhaustive reasons to allow and disallow the witnesses, as prayed to be summoned by the accused petitioners.

5. During course of arguments, counsel appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner Rajib Pal in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 4704/2023 made a submission that since one of the defence witness Mr. Ramdhan Mahavar has already been permitted, hence, the issue in respect of prayer for summoning the other two witnesses namely Ramavtar Meena and Krishan Gopal Saran be treated as not pressed at this stage during trial of criminal case, however, the prayer to summon these two witnesses as well may be allowed to be made at the appellate stage, if occasion arises.

6. In that respect, counsel for CBI states that, in case, need to file appeal, by and on behalf of the accused petitioner-Rajib Pal, would arise and he moves an application afresh before the Appellate Court, same shall obviously be considered and decided by the Appellate Court in accordance with law.

7. In view of above submissions, as far as impugned order dated 12.05.2023, to the extent of accused-petitioner Rajib Pal, is concerned, this Court is not entering into merits and demerits of the order and leave it open for petitioner to make a prayer for summoning the other two witnesses Ramavtar Meena and Krishna Gopal Saran at the appellate stage, if need so arise. If any such prayer is made, Appellate Court shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. [2025:RJ-JP:33335] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-4704/2023]

8. As far as prayer of accused petitioner Dilip Saxena to summon the Additional four witnesses namely Smt. Renu Kumari, Mr. M.K. Devrajan, Director General of Mines Safety, and Superintendent of Police, CBI, Jaipur, is concerned, this Court finds that in the order impugned, the trial Court has assigned detailed reasons to deny summoning of these witnesses.

9. During course of argument, counsel for the petitioner in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3654/2023, has confined his prayer to summon witness Smt. Renu Kumari, Hand Writing Expert, who is stated to be highly relevant witness, to support the defence of petitioner. Learned counsel submits that if Court permits to summon Smt. Renu Kumari, counsel is agreeable to not press for summon of other three witnesses.

10. In respect of summoning of Smt. Renu Kumari, Hand Writing Expert, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant-Anil Kumar Choudhary was not authorized by Smt. Sohni Devi to get remove restriction on her mining and in absence of authorization letter, entire case of prosecution, to put a demand of bribe by petitioner from Anil Kumar Choudhary to remove temporary injunction and authoring Anil Kumar Choudhary to operate mining, stands collapsed. Counsel pointed out that the incident of demand of bribe and rad handed trapping is of dated

15.06.2015 whereas Anil Kumar Choudhary produced his authorization from Smt. Sohni Devi, on the basis of Power of Attorney dated 23.06.2015 allegedly executed by Smt. Sohni Devi in his favour. His submission is that the thumb impression of Smt. Sohni Devi on the Power of Attorney is fake and this fact has been [2025:RJ-JP:33335] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-4704/2023] verified by the Hand Writing Expert, Smt. Renu Kumari in her report that the thumb impression of Smt. Sohni Devi on the Power of Attorney, does not match with her thumb impression available on other documents. In that view, in order to proof the power of attorney of Smt. Sohni Devi, as a fake document, counsel for petitioner has stressed to summon Smt. Renu Kumari to corroborate her expert report/opinion.

11. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI submits that Smt. Sohni Devi herself has appeared from the side of prosecution as PW-3 and verified her power of attorney in favour of Anil Kumar. No direct question in respect of her fake thumb impression on the Power of Attorney was put forward from the side of accused petitioner to ask from her in cross examination as to whether she put her thumb impression on the Power of Attorney or not?

12. In addition, his submission is that the another application filed on behalf of the accused petitioner, to seek opinion from CFSL report, in respect of thumb impression of Smt. Sohni Devi on Power of Attorney, has already been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 03.11.2022 and that order has not been challenged by the petitioner further. Hence, learned counsel for CBI argued that the trial court has not committed any perversity or jurisdictional error in denying to summon Smt. Renu Kumari and order does not call for any interference by this Court.

13. Having adverted to the rival contentions of both the parties, as far as summoning of witnesses 2 to 4 is concerned, trial Court has assigned sound reasons in Para No.18 to 22 to reject the [2025:RJ-JP:33335] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-4704/2023] prayer of accused and such reasonings are based on record, which do not call for any interference by this Court, more so when the counsel for the petitioner during course of argument has not pressed his prayer to summon these witnesses, sincerely.

14. As far as the prayer to summon Smt. Renu Kumari, Hand Writing Expert, is concerned, in the opinion of this Court such a prayer is misconceived and appears to be made, just to delay the criminal trial. The trial Court has clearly observed in the order impugned, particularly in Para No.17, that from the side of accused petitioner Dilip Saxena, no direct cross examination particularly in respect of thumb impression of Smt. Sohni Devi (PW-3) on her Power of Attorney was made. Further, the trial Court has observed that the application filed by petitioner to send the document to CFSL, has already been dismissed on merits vide order dated 03.11.2022.

15. In the opinion of this Court, the evidence of Smt. Renu Kumari, being a private Hand Writing Expert, would be just in the form of an opinion which may not be treated as conclusive or substantive more so when Smt. Sohni Devi, whose thumb impression on the power of attorney is being sought to be questioned, herself has appeared as prosecution witness (PW-3), yet no direct question by accused petitioner was put to her.

16. The legal position is well established that out of the list of witnesses, proposed to be summoned by accused for his degree purpose, same can be short listed by the Court and irrelevant and unnecessary defence witnesses may not be allowed to be summoned, since same prolongs the criminal trial. [2025:RJ-JP:33335] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-4704/2023]

17. In view of above discussion, this Court does not deem it just and proper to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to interfere with the order impugned in this regard, for summoning Smt. Renu Kumari.

18. Hence, the prayer to summon Smt. Renu Kumari, Hand Writing Expert, is hereby rejected.

19. As a result, both petitions are dismissed.

20. In view of the dismissal of both petitions, the interim order dated 17.08.2023, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this High Court that trial Court shall not pass final judgment in Sessions Case No.20/2018 stands vacated. It is expected that trial court shall proceed in the matter and decide the criminal case expeditiously as earliest possible but in accordance with law.

21. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. pcg/240-241 (SUDESH BANSAL),J