1 14 wp 486.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.486/2026 (Bipin S/o Virendrakumar Jambholkar & anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation thr. its Inspector, Nagpur) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. AA. S. Thotange, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. P.K. Sathianathan, Special Counsel for respondent/CBI. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 07/07/2026. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned special counsel for CBI. 2. The petitioners are challenging the order dated 01/04/2026 passed by the learned Special Court, Nagpur in Special Case No.02/2019, wherein the application filed under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Code”) by the petitioners was rejected. 3. The learned counsel for petitioners submits that he has filed the application for further cross-examination of six witnesses. The petitioners had engaged a new Advocate in the middle of the trial and after going through the entire evidence on record, it was found that these six witnesses are necessary to be further cross-examined, 2 14 wp 486.26 These witnesses are PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-29, PW-32, PW-43. He submits that Section 311 of the Code provides that, “any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case.” Therefore he submits that the cross examination of all these six witnesses is very much important for a just decision. He relied on following judgments:- (I) Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. Sate of Bihar & anr., (2013) 14 SCC 461. (III) State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav & anr. (2016) 2 SCC 402. (III) Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam, (2009) 5 SCC 153. 3. On the other hand the learned Special Counsel for respondent/CBI vehemently opposes the application and submits that in order to protract the trial, the application was filed by the petitioner after change of the Advocate. 3 14 wp 486.26 He submits that the ground of change of Advocate is no ground to entertain the application under Section 311 of the Code. The detailed cross-examination was conducted by the earlier Advocate and no room is left to further cross- examine those witnesses. Further, application is filed at the fag end of the trial. He submits that the charges were framed on 15/10/2019 against the accused persons and the first witness was examined in the year 2020. It is for the Trial Court to exercise the discretion under Section 311 of the Code, only if it is essential for the just decision of the case. Under such circumstances, there is no need to recall the witnesses only on the ground of change of Advocate. The application was moved only to fill the lacuna and nothing else. Which cannot sustain in law and therefore the writ petition is devoid of merits and same deserves to be rejected. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are facing the trial under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It appears from the record that 49 witnesses were to be examined and examination of almost all the witnesses are over. The charges were framed 4 14 wp 486.26 on 15/10/2019, whereas the first witness was examined in the year 2020. Thereafter, the evidence of other witnesses were also completed. After going through the impugned order, it appears to me that since beginning, the earlier Advocate has conducted the trial. However, the new Advocate was engaged by the petitioner on 04/02/2026 and it was noticed by the new Advocate that there are certain discrepancies in the evidence of six witnesses who are sought sought to be examined, therefore the Advocate though it fit to further cross-examine them, and the application was filed under Section 311 of the Code providing reasons necessary to recall the witnesses. 5. After going through the impugned order and the application filed by the petitioners, apparently it appears to me that it it not at all necessary to further cross-examine these six witnesses by recalling them as they have already been cross-examined earlier in detail. Mere change of Advocate that by itself is no ground to file an application under Section 311 of the Code. This issue has already been settled by the Supreme Court. Even in the impugned order, the Trial Court has relied on the judgment of State of Haryana Vs. Ram Meher & ors., 2016 (4) RCR 5 14 wp 486.26 (Criminal) 154, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the ground that counsel engaged earlier by the defense had not put certain questions and had not given certain suggestions to the witnesses is no ground to recall prosecution witnesses for cross-examination. Further, the Supreme Court has held that this kind of application cannot be allowed because the accused persons had changed the counsel of their choice. 6. Another important aspect is that if the petitioners were permitted to further cross-examine the witnesses, it would amount to filling the lacuna, which is not permissible. No doubt, opportunity of hearing is the basic principle of law and important for a fair trial. However, it appears from the impugned order as well as the record placed before me that petitioners were given full opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses at length. Under such circumstances, the application filed by the petitioners can be said to be with an objective of protracting the trial or filling the lacuna. Under such circumstances, I do not find any perversity or error in the impugned order passed by the Special Judge for C.B.I., Nagpur. 6 14 wp 486.26 7. In view of the above, the petition sans of merits and accordingly is rejected. 8. All miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any stands disposed of. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane