Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Y. Eqbal, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.
R.N. Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
R.C. Bansal and others - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 2199-2201 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.1730-1732 of 2011)
Decided on : 14-10-2014
(2014) 3 SCC 306; (2014) 3 SCC 92; (1984) 2 SCC 500; (1993) 2 SCC 16 – Relied upon
(2006) 3 JCC 2081 (Delhi); (1996) 4 SCC 495; (1998) 7 SCC 149 – Referred
(b) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 5 r/w section 209 and 193, Cr PC – Special court – Deemed Sessions court – Special Judge therefore empowered to take cognizance of offence without the accused being committed to him for trial – Summoning of additional accused is part of the proceeding initiated by taking cognizance of an offence – Instantly, Special Judge issuing summons against respondents after considering in detail the material brought on record during investigation – No infirmity. (Para 23, 26, 27, 29)
(1984) 2 SCC 500; (2001) 8 SCC 257; (1979) 4 SCC 5; AIR 1967 SC 1167: (1967) 2 SCR 423; (1993) 2 SCC 16 – Relied upon
(2001) 6 SCC 670; (1995) 2 SCC 23;1995 Crl LJ 2118 – Referred
(c) Administration of Justice – Judicial propriety – Special Judge rightly issuing summons to respondents – Directing CBI to get a case registered against investigating officers – Not necessary. (Para 32)
(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 and 397 – High Court instead of judgments of Supreme Court relying on judgment of single Judge of the High Court and reversing order of Special Judge – Erroneous in law – Cannot be sustained. (Para 31)
Facts of the case:
A Society named Maharani Avanti Bai Co-operative Society was formed in the year 1983. Upto the year 1989 there were 90 members of the Society and thereafter further enrolment of members was stopped. However, as no land was allotted to the Society for many years and in the meantime its members became disinterested in the running of the Society as the cost of the flats to be constructed had gone very high and beyond their reach, the society became dormant.
Some persons who were not members of the Society forged certain records of the Society to show that many of the original members of the Society had resigned and a new Managing Committee had been constituted. By forged resignation letters of the original members of the Society, new members were shown to have been enrolled and the forged records were submitted in the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies after entering into some kind of criminal understanding with the officials in that office. Based on the forged documents DDA was approached for allotment of land with the assistance rendered by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by certifying that all the meetings were duly held and a list of new members of the Society was forwarded to DDA. Accepting the same, DDA allotted a plot measuring 600 sq. meters to the Society in Dwarka for the benefit of the 90 members of the Society in the year 1998. All these facts emerged during the investigation by CBI.
The CBI filed a charge-sheet in the Court of Special Judge against six persons, out of whom two were public servants while other four were the members of the bogus Managing Committee of the Society, who had taken over the dormant Society by resorting to forgery etc.
The Special Judge, CBI took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and ordered summoning of six persons who had been named by the CBI in its charge-sheet as accused persons. After all the accused persons entered appearance.
However, before the next date of hearing, accused R.N. Aggarwal moved an application under Section 190 read with Section 193 Cr.P.C. for summoning three more persons, namely, Madan Sharma (PW-21), Ms. Sujata Chauhan (PW-23) and R.C. Bansal (PW-30) as accused, who had been cited by the CBI as its witnesses. The Special Judge allowed that application and summoned the prosecution witnesses Madan Sharma, Sujata Chauhan and R.C. Bansal and also directed the Director of CBI to get a case registered against the Investigating Officer of the case under Section 217, IPC for letting off these three persons.
Prosecution witnesses Sujata Chauhan and R.C. Bansal (respondents herein) approached the High Court by filing separate petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
CBI, feeling aggrieved by the direction given by the Special Judge in the impugned order for registration of a criminal case against the investigating officer, also approached the High Court by way of a revision petition.
Single Judge of the High Court quashed the order passed by the Special Judge.
Finding of the Court:
Special Judge rightly issued summons to the respondents. Directing CBI to get a case registered against investigating officers, however, was not necessary.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.Y. EQBAL, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 2.2.2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Crl.M.C. Nos.2955 and 3779 of 2009 and Crl.Rev.No. 575 of 2009, whereby the High Court of Delhi while quashing the order dated 10th July, 2009 of the Special Judge, CBI Court Rohini, allowed aforesaid Section 482 criminal petitions filed by the alleged culprits and Section 397 criminal revision of the Investigating Officer.
3. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 1983, a Society named Maharani Avanti Bai Co-operative Society was formed and from time to time members were enrolled by its Managing Committee. Upto the year 1989 there were 90 members of the Society and thereafter further enrolment of members was stopped. However, no land was allotted to the Society for many years and in the meantime its members became disinterested in the running of the Society as the cost of the flats to be constructed had gone very high and beyond their reach. The society thus became dormant.
4. Some persons who were not members of the Society but were far-sighted and clever minded became interested to take over its management and got the land allotted from Delhi Development Authority (in short, ‘DDA’) to be utilized for the benefits of their own persons. They forged certain records of the Society to show that many of the original members of the Society had resigned and a new Managing Committee had been constituted. By forged resignation letters of the original members of the Society, new members were shown to have been enrolled and the forged records were submitted in the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies after entering into some kind of criminal understanding with the officials in that office. It is alleged that based on the forged documents, which included minutes purporting to be of the illegally constituted Managing Committee of the Society comprising of all new members and also of General Body Meetings which were never held, DDA was approached for allotment of land with the assistance rendered by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by certifying that all the meetings were duly held and a list of new members of the Society was forwarded to DDA. Accepting the same, DDA allotted a plot measuring 600 sq. meters to the Society in Dwarka for the benefit of the 90 members of the Society in the year 1998. All these facts emerged during the investigation by CBI.
5. On completion of the investigation, the CBI filed a charge-sheet in the Court of Special Judge against six persons, out of whom two were public servants while other four were the members of the bogus Managing Committee of the Society, who had taken over the dormant Society by resorting to forgery etc.
6. The Special Judge, CBI vide order dated 23rd July, 2008, after perusing the material submitted by the CBI, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) as well as Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and ordered summoning of six persons who had been named by the CBI in its charge-sheet as accused persons alleged to have committed the offences in conspiracy with each other. After all the accused persons entered appearance, the Special Judge furnished them copies of all the documents as per the requirement of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 9th March, 2009. However, before the next date of hearing, accused R.N. Aggarwal moved an application under Section 190 read with Section 193 Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge for summoning three more persons, namely, Madan Sharma (PW-21), Ms. Sujata Chauhan (PW-23) and R.C. Bansal (PW-30) as accused, who had been cited by the CBI as its witnesses. The learned Special Judge kept that application for consideration on 9th March, 2009. However, on that day the matter was adjourned to 5th May, 2009 for arguments on charge wi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
