t 31.*IN THIT HI{}TI COUITT OF DELHI AT NEW DEI,HI cRL.RltV .P.23612008 AC. S[JI)EVANANDA AVD. ..... Pctitioner 'l'hrough Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocatc. vcrsus ' C.ll.I.TIIROLJGFI TI'IE DIIIbCTOI{ GENERAL.... Ilcspondent I'hrough Mr. N.I(. Sharma, Advocate for the rcspondent-CBI. COIIAM: IION'I}LE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KTIANNA OII.DER "1, 14.09.2010 1. lly thc impirgned order dated 25tl'March, 2008, learned Additional Scssions .Tudgc has dcclincd thc defence praycr for production of Madan Mohan Srivastava fol identification bv DW-2. Swami Shankarananda and J)W-3, Stuvami K;shavananda. 2. As pcr the prosccution case, Madan Mohan Srivastava was known as Swami Vishr.vcshwaranand and was a membcr of Anand Marg Organisation and hc was a pafi of the conspiracy resulting in death of Mr. L.N. Mishra, the thcn Itailway Ministcr on 2"d January, 1975 in a bomb blast at Samastipur, Ilihar. PW-1, Madan Mohan Srivastava has lnrned an appfovcr. 3. Lcarncd courisel appearing for thc petitioner subrnits that Madan Mohan Srivastava was ncver known as Swami Vishwcshwaranand and he is an impostor and this has bccn the dcfence casc right fiorn the beginning. It is submittcd that onc Ilans Lal s/o latc Daroga Singh of village'l-enduni rvas known as Swami Vishweshwaranand. Accordingly, Madan Mohan Srivastava has no concsrn and has been propped up by the prosccution. 'l'o pl'ovo thcir stand, thc defencc has irroduced DW-2, Swami Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified '- lt'k' a€-'t Shankarananda and I)W-3, Swarni Kcshavananda. L:" 'I'hese contentions have to be decided by the trial court on merits. I am not rcquired 1o decide this question, in view of the limited controversy before me. 5. Prosccution counsel has submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that Madan Mohan Srivastava was ever known as Hans Lal. Irurlher, Hans Lal and Madan Mohan Srivastava arc two separate persons. The said statement is taken on record. 6. In view of the statement, I do not think any useful purpose will be served by directing production of Madan Mohan Srivastava in the courl for the purpose of iuentification by DW-2 and DW-3. Dlf-2 and DW-3 in their examination in chief J*vc stalcd that one l{a;rs Lal mentioned above was known as Swami \Iishwcshwaranand. 'l'hat there is a person by the name of Madan Mohan Srivastava i5 no1 in doubt but the defence case is that he was not known as Swami Vishwcshwaranand. Madan Mohan Srivastava has appeared as PW-l and has been cross-cxamined. Mere physical appcarance of Madan Mohan Srivastava bcfore DW-2 and DW-3 will not assist or establish whether or not Madan Mohan Srivastava was Swami Vishweshwaranand. Learned counsel for the proseiution-CBl is also right in lris contertion that production of Madan Mohan Srivastava before DW-2 and LW-3 at this stagc will be a futile exercisc and a mere ernpty formality as it will be only man to rran idcntification. 7. In these circumstances, I do !r"** is disrnissed. frt/ not find any merit in the present petition and the SANJIV KIIANNA. J. SEPTNMI}ER 14.2010 u*A