1] They are heard and perused the record.
2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023/482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 17.01.2026 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Indore in Special Case (CBI) No.03/2004(arising out of Crime No.RCBHP200350009), whereby the petitioner's application for recalling of prosecution witnesses under Section 348 of B.N.S.S./Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected, wherein the petitioner is facing the trial under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC along with the other accused persons. The case is at the stage of final hearing.
3] Vide the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C./348 of BNSS has been rejected, wherein the petitioner sought to recall the prosecution witness No.14 Subhash Pande, the then Inspector CBI and PW-8 Sureshchandra Gupta, the then Chief Officer of UCO Bank for further cross-examination. The aforesaid application was filed on the ground that the aforesaid two witnesses could not be confronted with the certain documents, which could not be produced earlier, which were not brought on record by the CBI.
4] Shri Amit Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that earlier when the relevant documents were not brought on record by the CBI, a petition M.Cr.C. No.24035 of 2022, was filed before this Court, which was decided on 29.10.2025, whereby this Court had also observed that if the documents are not filed by the CBI, then the adverse inference may be drawn against them. However, the aforesaid application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was still filed on the ground that the aforesaid documents were filed by the petitioner on record, and thus, it was necessary for the petitioner to confront the nature, content, and relevance of the documents to the prosecution witnesses, however, the application to recall has been rejected without properly appreciating the material available on record. Thus, it is submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.
5] The prayer is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent, and it is submitted that this Court has already taken note of the non-production of the documents by the CBI in M.Cr.C. No.24035 of 2022, which was decided on 29.10.2025, and thus, there was no occasion for the respondent to file such an application when the case is at its fag end and only the final arguments are to be made.
6] On due consideration of submissions, perusal of the documents filed on record, including the order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.24035 of 2022, it is found that while disposing of the said petition, this Court had made following observations:-
"12] A perusal of the aforesaid order would clearly reveal that the trial Court has categorically held that if it is found that these documents have been deliberately suppressed by the prosecution or the bank, then an adverse inference shall be drawn against them, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is in line with the provisions of Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, which provides for an adverse inference, relevant excerpt of the same, reads as under:-
"114. Court may presume existence of certain facts. The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
The Court may presume -
Xxxxxxxx
(g) That evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it;"
(Emphasis supplied)
13] In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the documents claimed to be in possession of the respondent are not produced by them, as the trial Court is legally equipped to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution on account of the non-production of such documents, which would ultimately benefit the petitioner and would certainly be in line with his defence and it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/accused.
14] In view of the same, no case for interference is made out, and the petition is hereby dismissed, and as a natural corollary, the stay order passed by this Court on 19.05.2022 is hereby vacated. 15] The learned Judge of the trial Court is directed to expedite the matter and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible considering its long pendency of around 21 years.
16] Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid observations."
(Emphasis Supplied)
7] Thus, it was made clear in the said order itself that the non production of the documents would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner as Section 114 of the Evidence Act would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In such circumstances, this Court finds that the learned Judge of the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner at this juncture when the case was fixed for final hearing, as no illegality or jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned Judge in rejecting the application, which appears to have been filed only with a view to further drag the matter. In view of the same, the petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
