Punjab & Haryana HC: Permission Granted to Accused for Cross-Examination of Additional Witnesses in CBI Trial

Case Name: Naveen Shegal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh
Date of Judgment: January 13, 2020
Citation: CRM-M No. 527 of 2020 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan

Held: The High Court partly allowed the petition and permitted the accused to cross-examine two additional witnesses introduced by the CBI at the fag end of trial, as well as to further cross-examine the Investigating Officer and the approver. It held that while the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution’s oral request to summon additional witnesses without following the procedure under Section 311 CrPC or recording its satisfaction, the accused’s right to fair trial required that he be given effective opportunity to cross-examine them. This was necessary since the additional evidence had prejudiced the defense and related to critical aspects of the case, including recording of voice samples.

Summary: The petitioner challenged the trial court’s order dated 13.12.2019 allowing the CBI to examine two new prosecution witnesses, Didar Singh and Manohar Lal, who were not cited in the original challan and whose statements under Section 161 CrPC had not been recorded. The petitioner contended that this was done without an application under Section 311 CrPC and without giving hearing to the accused. He also argued that since the witnesses were connected with the proceedings for taking his voice sample, the inability to cross-examine them at the appropriate stage prejudiced his defense. Relying on Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2013), he argued that an order under Section 311 must record reasons and ensure fairness. The CBI opposed, citing Khatta Singh v. CBI (2018), which allowed courts to exercise suo motu powers to summon additional witnesses. The High Court found fault with the trial court’s procedure but balanced equities by directing that the petitioner be given two effective opportunities to cross-examine PW38 Didar Singh, PW39 Manohar Lal, as well as further cross-examine PW11 Saurav Kant (approver) and PW37 K.S. Rana (Investigating Officer). It clarified that other co-accused would also have the same right.

Decision: The petition was partly allowed, directing the trial court to summon the additional witnesses and grant two effective opportunities for their cross-examination, along with further cross-examination of the approver and Investigating Officer.