THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.R.C.No.1869 of 2009 ORDER This criminal revision case is filed challenging the order dated 05.10.2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1820 of 2009 in C.C.No.9 of 2002 by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, wherein the petition filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C, seeking to direct the respondent-CBI for production of 112 letters of authorization given by the borrowers/employees of Survey of India to their salary disbursing officer while availing the consumer durable loans, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner herein is A2 in C.C.No.9 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad. The trial of the case was completed and both parties have filed their respective written arguments. At that stage, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.3564 of 2008 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of P.Ws.21,26,27 and 28 and the same was allowed. The petitioner states that he could not cross-examine P.Ws.26 and 28 due to non-availability of the letters of authorization given by the borrowers/employees of Survey of India addressed to their salary disbursing officer while availing durable loans. Hence, he filed Crl.M.P.No.1820 of 2009 with the prayer as stated supra. By the order impugned, the said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision. 3. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the letters of authorisation given by the employees would be signed by the salary Disbursing Officer, they are necessary for deciding the case against the petitioner. He further contended that unless those letters are produced by the C.B.I., the petitioner is not able to cross-examine P.Ws.26 and 28. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for C.B.I. submitted that the alleged documents, as sought for by the petitioner, have not been seized by the Investigating Officer as such they cannot be produced before the Court. 6. A perusal of the order impugned shows that the petitioner has not placed any copy of the acknowledgment given by the Inspector, C.B.I. with regard to receipt of the said documents from the Bank and that the letters of authorisation were marked as Exs.P232 to 312. Further, as per the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for C.B.I., that those letters of authorisation are not in the custody of C.B.I., the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application by the order impugned. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, considering the fact that the petitioner did not cross- examine P.Ws.26 and 28, he is permitted to cross-examine them on payment of costs of Rs.1000/-to each witness and the trial Court is directed to fix a date for their cross-examination and pass final orders in accordance with law on or before 30.11.2012. 8. Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 9th November, 2012 sj