Puneet Sabharwal vs CBI - 2024 Supreme(SC) 244

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 244

VIKRAM NATH, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Puneet Sabharwal – Appellant
Versus
CBI – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ardhendu Mauli Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ninad Laud, Adv. Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Ms. Shrika Gautam, Adv. Mr. Karan Mathur, Adv. Ms. Rashika Narain, Adv. Mr. Sangramsingh R. Bhonsle, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K.M. Natraj, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chaurasia, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv. Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Abhinav S. Raghuvanshi, AOR Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Ms. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Mr. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. Mr. Aayush Saklani, Adv. Mr. Shubham Mishra, Adv. Mr. Abhinav S. Raghuvanshi, AOR

JUDGMENT :

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals call in question the correctness of the judgment of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 01.12.2020 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 200 of 2010 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 339 of 2010. These proceedings in the High Court, in turn, challenged the Order on charge dated 21.02.2006, as well as the charges framed on 28.02.2006, by the Special Judge, Delhi. While the charge against the appellant Puneet Sabharwal was under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the charge against appellant R.C. Sabharwal was under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In substance, the charge was that appellant R.C. Sabharwal owned assets disproportionate to known sources of income and the appellant Puneet Sabharwal, son of R.C. Sabharwal, has abetted him in the commission of the said offence. The High Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the petitions. Aggrieved, the appellants are before us.

Brief Facts:

3. On 23.08.1995, based on source information, the Anti- Corruption Bureau, New Delhi, District New Delhi registered a First I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 244

VIKRAM NATH, K. V. VISWANATHANPuneet Sabharwal – AppellantVersusCBI – Respondent

VIKRAM NATH, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Puneet Sabharwal – Appellant
Versus
CBI – Respondent