1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION (MAIN) NO.266 OF 2008. Shri Pravin Kumar, son of Shri Ram Yatan Prasad, Garrison Engineer, MES, Vasco-da-Gama-Goa, resident of 81-B, Ward Room, INS Hansa, Vasco, P/Address at Village and Post Pundah, Thana Fatwa, Dist. Patna, State Bihar. .... Applicant. Versus State (C.B.I.), having its Office at Surekha Building, near Durdarshan Kendra, Altinho, Panaji, Goa. ..... Respondent. Mr. D. J. Pangam, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Coram :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date :- 24 th November, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2 3. This is the third round of litigation at the instance of the applicant, who is accused in Special Case No.5/2003 before the Special Judge, South Goa, Margao. 4. The applicant is charged for having committed offence under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( “The Act” for short). Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, the applicant moved an application under Section 91 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking production of nine documents mentioned in the application dated 03.04.2008. The same was opposed by the respondent and by the impugned order dated 21.07.2008, the learned Special Judge permitted production of documents at serial number 3 and 7 and in so far as the other documents are concerned, the learned Judge recorded finding that the said documents were irrelevant for the purpose of proving the defence of the accused. 5. Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that liberty be granted to the applicant to renew the prayer for production of the documents which have not been permitted to be produced after foundation is led by the accused in the cross-examination of the witness. According to Mr. Pangam finding given by the learned Judge that they are irrelevant, may be set aside and liberty be granted to the applicant to renew the prayer for production of seven documents, the 3 production of which has been disallowed. 6. Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent submits that the respondent will have no objection, if liberty is given to the applicant to renew the prayer for production of the said seven documents only after foundation is led by the applicant in the course of cross-examination of the informant Mr. Umesh Salgaonkar, P.W.1. He further submits that the learned Special Judge be directed to consider the application for production of documents, if filed, on its own merits. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge has directed production of two documents which, according to the learned Special Judge, are relevant for proving the defence of the accused. Perusal of the record discloses that the applicant has not led foundation for the production of the remaining seven documents at this stage. Therefore, Mr. Ferreira is right in submitting that the applicant may be given liberty to renew the prayer for production of remaining seven documents in case the applicant is able to make out relevancy of the said documents to prove his defence. 8. In view of the above, liberty is granted to the applicant to 4 renew his prayer for production of the remaining seven documents only after the applicant lays foundation in the course of cross-examination of the informant that the said seven documents are relevant to prove his defence. In case such an application is filed, the learned Special Judge shall decide the same on its own merit and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by the observations made and findings given by her in the impugned order more particularly finding that the said documents are irrelevant for proving the defence of the accused. 9. At this stage, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the chargesheet was filed in the year 2003 and the matter is pending for considerable length of time and, therefore, the disposal of Special Case No.5/2003, be expedited. Considering that the case is of the year 2003, the learned Judge shall expedite the disposal of the case. 10. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA