Sunita vs. State Of Ut Chandigarh

Facts

The petitioner, Sunita, filed a petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 04.05.2024 passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI). The petitioner sought to set aside the said order. During arguments, the petitioner's counsel stated that the challenge was limited to the non-summoning of a witness. Specifically, the petitioner wished to summon a clerk from the Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate to produce documents showing business declarations by Punjab Electronic, Sector-18-C, Chandigarh, including its GST number and place of business. The petitioner's counsel argued that this evidence was relevant to questions posed during the cross-examination of PW35, concerning whether Punjab Electronic was authorized to sell SIM cards. The respondent (State of UT Chandigarh) opposed this, arguing the request would not impact the recovery effected during the investigation.

Held

The Court held that while it would not comment on the merits of the contentions, given that the matter was pending before the Trial Court, it was deemed appropriate to grant the petitioner one opportunity to summon the concerned clerk from the Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate. This opportunity was granted at the petitioner's risk and costs. The petitioner was directed to take immediate steps and approach the learned Trial Court for this purpose. The Court further stipulated that if the Trial Court found any delay caused by the petitioner, it should proceed with the matter as per law. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the ultimate decision on summoning the witness rests with the Trial Court based on the petitioner's application and any delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to summon a clerk from the Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate to produce documents related to Punjab Electronic's business declarations, including its GST number and place of business, for the purpose of cross-examination of PW35, particularly in light of the petitioner's contention that Punjab Electronic was not authorized to sell SIM cards. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that summoning the GST clerk was necessary to obtain documentary evidence relevant to the cross-examination of PW35. This evidence, concerning the business declarations of Punjab Electronic, would support the petitioner's assertion that the entity was not authorized to sell SIM cards, which is a material point in the ongoing trial. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent opposed the prayer, contending that the requested evidence would not have any bearing on the recovery of goods made during the investigation at the instance of the petitioner. The respondent did not rely on any specific provisions, circulars, or precedents.