't $-25 to 33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2726/2gIl SHREERAM STRAW PRODUCTS \ LTD. & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal, Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Dheeraj Gupta, Mr. A. Das and Mr.Rashi Bansal. Advocates versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for State Mr. K.K.Manan, Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Mr. Mustafa Arif NIr. Navinder Nath Gautam and N/ft. Abhimanyu Dhawan, Advocates for respondent no.2. And + CRL.M.C.2727/2011 SHREERAM STRAW PRODUCTS \ LTD. & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: VIr. Sunil Mittal, NIr. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Dheeraj Gupta, Mr. A. Das and Mr.Rashi Bansal. Advocates versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for State IvIr. K.K.Manan, Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Mr. Mustafa Arif, Mr. Navinder Nath Gautam and lft. Abhimanyu Dhawan, Advocates for respondent no.2. CRL.M.C. 2728/20t1 SHREERAM STRAW PRODUCTS LrD' & oRS' rhroueh: *;: t'J*?i"'r,ou," N,{r. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Dheeraj Gupta, Mr. A. Das. and Mr.Rashi Bansal. Advocates a. And -r 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 7 f And + \ And versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for State Mr. K.K.Manan, Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Mr. Mustafa Arif Mr. ' Navinder Nath Gautam and X{r. Abhimanyu Dhawan, Advocates for respondent no.2. CRL.M.C. 2729/2011 SHREERAM STRAW PRODUCTS LTD. & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal, Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Dheeraj Gupta, Mr. A. Das and Mr.Rashi Bansal. Advocates versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for State Mr. K.K.Manan, Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, NIr. Mustafa Arif, VIr. Navinder Nath Gautam and Mr. Abhimanyu Dhawan, Advocates for respondent no.2. CRL.M.C. 2730/2011 SHREERAM STRAW PRODUCTS LTD. & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal, Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Dheeraj Gupta, Mr. A. Das and Mr.Rashi Bansal. Advocates versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for State Mr. K.K.Manan, Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Mr. Mustafa Arif, \&. Navinder Nath Gautam and Nh. Abhimanyu Dhawan, Advocates for respondent no.2. And + a. q 1 CRL.M.C. 273U2011 SHREERAM STRAW PRODUCTS LTD. & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal, VI-r. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Dheeraj Gupta, Mr. A. Das and Mr.Rashi Bansal. Advocates versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for State Mr. K.K.Manan, Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Mr. Mustafa Arif, Mr. Navinder Nath Gautam and A{r. Abhimanyu Dhawan, Advocates for respondent no.2. And + CRL.M.C. 2732120t1 SHREERAM STRAW PRODUCTS \ LTD. & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal, Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Dheeraj Gupta, Mr. A. Das and Mr.Rashi Bansal. Advocates versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for State VIr. K.K.Manan, Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Mr. Mustafa Arif, Mr. Navinder Nath Gautam and Mr. Abhimanyu Dhawan, Advocates for respondent no.2. CRL.M.C. 2733|2OIT SHREERAM STRAW PRODUCTS LTD. & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: X/ft. Sunil Mittal, N/ft. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Dheeraj Gupta, Mr. A. Das and Mr.Rashi Bansal. Advocates versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent |} And + , Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for State Mr. K.K.Manan, Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, Mr. Mustafa Arif Mr. Navinder Nath Gautam and NIr. Abhimanyu Dhawan, Advocates for respondent no.2. CRL.M.C. 2734/2011 SHREERAM STRAW PRODUCTS LTD. & ORS. ..... Petitioner Mr. Sunil Mittal, Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Dheeraj Gupta, Mr. A. Das and Mr.Rashi Bansal. Advocates Through: g versus STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for State Nft. K.K.Manan, Mr. Nipun Bhardwaj, IVIr. Mustafa Arif, NIr. Navinder Nath Gautam and Nft. Abhimanyu Dhawan, Advocates for respondent no.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA ORDER 02.12.20rr These petitions have been preferred by the petitioner assailing order dated 20.7.2011 passed by learned ASJ and the order dated 13.5.2011 passed by learned MM. The order which was passed by learned MM on an application under Section 311 Cr.PC on 13.5.2011 was assailed by the petitioner herein before the learned ADJ by way of revision petitions which came to be dismissed by his order dated 20.7.20II. It is to be noted that the passing of order dated 13.5.2011 has its genesis in the order dated 15.02.2011 whereby the request of petitioner herein under Section 311 cr.PC for recalling CWI along with some record was allowed. And I-r 3 "h b a The order that was passed is cryptic in the sense that the ingredients of Section 311 Cr.PC were not taken care of whereas the application under Section 311 Cr.PC as was filed by the petitioner had mentioned the details of the documents as also the reasons for recalling CWl and production of those documents. It was based on the cross examination of CWI wherein he had stated that he had stated in cross examination that he could produce the documents. After passing few orders, the order dated 13.5.2011 came to be' passed whereby the learned MM has apparently withdrawn the previous order of permitting cross examination of CW1 and production of documents by him as passed on15.2.2011. The learned ASJ also seems to have overlooked the ingredients of Section 31 1 Cr.PC. In my opinion, the right course for the courts below was to go through each and every document that was sought to be produced in the light of the cross examination of CWl and to see as to which of those documents were gennane to the issue and could be allowed to be produced and proved in re-examination of CWl. The orders dated 13.5.2011 and 20.7.2011 are not tenable in law and are hereby set aside and the matter required to be re-examined by the learned MM. In view of the above, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has agreed to produce CW1 for fuither cross examination with regard to the documents which have already been produced and copy of which have been given to the petitioner. The leamed MM will allow further cross examination of the complainant only to what has already been not examined and confined to the documents, copies of which have already been given. However, it is made clear that it will be open for the leamed MM to decide and pass appropriate orders thereafter if any other document which was relevant and germane to the issue in the interest ofjustice and was already not produced by the complainant and was in his possession. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, all the petitions stand disposed of in above terms with the directions to learned MM to take up the a. 't_ case for further cross examination of CWl. The parties are directed to appear before the leamed MM on 16.01.2012 when the learned MM shall permit further cross examination of CWl in the manner indicated above on the same day or any other convenient but short dates. It is however made clear that the petitioner herein will not seek any further opportunity. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. m DECEMBER 02,2011 rd