IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-26609 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 2.9.2011 A.K.Dadwal ....Petitioner Versus Central Bureau of Investigation ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.R.K.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner impugns the order dated 11.8.2011 vide which his prayer for summoning the witnesses along the record in original by way of defence evidence in proceedings under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been declined. The petitioner, who is facing these proceedings, had given a list of witnesses and during the course of recording of his evidence exhausted it and also suffered a statement to the extent that all the witnesses in the list stand examined. Thereafter, he came up with two applications which are on record as Annexures P-4 and P-5 mentioning number of witnesses whom he wishes to summon along with requisite record the details of which has also been given in the applications. Crl.Misc.No.M-26609 of 2011 (O&M) -2- The prayer was declined which has resulted in filing of the instant petition. On due consideration of the matter and noticing the contention which has been raised before this Court that these witnesses are necessary to be examined to enhance the cause of justice and for the purpose of proper adjudication of the matter, I am of the opinion that the instant applications are totally misconceived and the impugned order is absolutely justified. A perusal of the applications reveals that not even the basic courtesy has been extended to the language of the statute. No provision of law has been mentioned under which the petitioner has sought to invoke the summoning of the said witnesses after he had exhausted the list of witnesses which he had supplied earlier. That apart, the applications do not reveal as to what is the relevance of the voluminous record which the petitioner wishes to summon. The Court is of the opinion that when an application of this kind is moved, it is imperative that the relevant provisions of law should be mentioned. Even if this is not so, then at lest the fundamentals of jurisprudence would require that the application should disclose the necessity of summoning the witnesses and the record and their relevance to the controversy so as to enable the court to apply its mind and to see whether the prayer of the applicant is justified and also to evaluate whether such material has some relation with the controversy and also to see whether the same is essential for proper adjudication of the matter. In the absence of these particulars, the trial Court cannot be accused of having passed the order arbitrarily when it had been deprived of the occasion Crl.Misc.No.M-26609 of 2011 (O&M) -3- of the necessary material to evaluate the facts of the case in relation to the material sought to be adduced. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 2.9.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss