$-54 * IN THE fflGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4200/2011 MOHD ABAD ALI & ANR versus DRI Through: Petitioner Through: Mr. Vijay Agarwal and Mr. Vishal Bansal, Advocates Respondent Mr. Satish Agarwala and Mr. Sushil Kaushik, Advocates And + CRL.M.C. 4203/2011 MOHD ABAD ALI & ANR Through: Petitioner Mr. Vijay Agarwal and Mr. Vishal Bansal, Advocates % CBI versus Respondent Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate for CBI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA ORDER 15.12.2011 These petitions have been filed by the petitioners Abid Ali and Imam Raja assailing the impugned order dated 22.11.2011 passed by learned AST, Delhi whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.PC read with Section 315 Cr.P.C filed by the petitioners/accused Mohd. Abad Ali and Imam Raja were dismissed. It has been noted by learned ASJ in the impugned orders that in case of DRI, the statement of the accused was recorded on 3.5.2006 and the defence evidence was closed on 11.8.2006 whereas in the case of CBI, the statement of accused recorded on 7.12.2010 and the defence evidence was clpsed on 26.2.2011. Signing Date:21.08.2024 17:08:56 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified * ( The appHcationwas filed by the petitioner for examining them as their witnesses. Having regard to the fact that several opportunities were given to the petitioners to lead their witnesses and the applications were filed at the stage of final arguments, the applicationsof the petitioners were dismissed by learned ASJ. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was during the course of final arguments before the learned ASJ that when objection was sought to be raised by DRI and CBI that the retraction of confessional statement which was already filed by petitioners and was on the court record were not proved, that the petitioners wanted to prove that the retraction by examining themselves as witnesses. Having regard to the fact that retraction statements of the petitioners which were already filed, the petitioners wanted to rely upon the retraction fi-om their confessional statements made under Section 108 of Customs Act and since there was objections as regards to the retraction of confessional statement not being proved on record, I am of the view that in the interest of justice one opportunity for proving retraction of the confessional statements can be given to the petitioners. It is clarified that one and only one opportunity is given to the petitioners in order to enable them to prove on record the retraction statements. It is informed that the matter before the trial court is listed on 17.12.2011. It is therefore directed that before the learned trial court proceed to hear the final arguments, may give an opportunity to the petitioners as noted above, if the tune permits on that date or any other date. The petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Dasfi. M.L. MEHTA,J DECEMBER 15,2011 lio^dasii