Back
2009 Supreme(Del) 548
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
Dharambir Khattar & Others
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation
CRL.REV.P.340 of 2008 & CRL.M.A. 7751/2008 CRL.REV.P.371/2008 & CRL.M.A. 8085/2008 CRL.REV.P.380/2008 CRL.REV.P.456/2008 & CRL.M.A. 9662/2008
Decided on : 05-05-2009
For the Petitioners:S.K. Rungta with Ms. Pratiti Rungta, Dr. Rekha Dhakar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Dayan Krishnan, Special Public Prosecutor with Gautam Narayan, Advocate.
Headnote:
The High Court held that the revision petitions filed by the accused challenging the order of the Special Judge framing charges against them were not maintainable under Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA). The Court further held that the intercepted telephone conversations between the accused constituted sufficient material to draw a strong suspicion against them for the commission of the offences charged.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were charged with criminal conspiracy to commit the offences of corruption and abuse of official position under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA). The charges arose from allegations that the accused had conspired to prevent the demolition of an unauthorized lift constructed by one of the accused on public land. The accused filed revision petitions in the High Court challenging the order of the Special Judge framing charges against them.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the revision petitions were not maintainable under Section 19(3)(c) of the PCA, which barred the High Court from exercising revisional powers in relation to interlocutory orders passed by the Special Judge. The Court further held that the intercepted telephone conversations between the accused constituted sufficient material to draw a strong suspicion against them for the commission of the offences charged.
Issues: 1. Whether the revision petitions filed by the accused were maintainable under Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA)? 2. Whether the intercepted telephone conversations between the accused constituted sufficient material to draw a strong suspicion against them for the commission of the offences charged?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the revision petitions were not maintainable under Section 19(3)(c) of the PCA, which barred the High Court from exercising revisional powers in relation to interlocutory orders passed by the Special Judge. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in V.C. Shukla v. CBI, which held that an order framing charges was an interlocutory order and not a final order, and therefore, not subject to revision under Section 19(3)(c) of the PCA. 2. The High Court held that the intercepted telephone conversations between the accused constituted sufficient material to draw a strong suspicion against them for the commission of the offences charged. The Court noted that the conversations showed that the accused were involved in a conspiracy to prevent the demolition of the unauthorized lift and that they had discussed the payment of bribes to government officials to achieve this goal.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petitions filed by the accused, holding that they were not maintainable under Section 19(3)(c) of the PCA and that there was sufficient material on record to draw a strong suspicion against the accused for the commission of the offences charged.
S. Muralidhar, J.
1. These four Criminal Revision Petitions under Section 397 read with Section 401of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) are directed against order on charge dated 8th April, 2008 and an order dated 16th April, 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) framing charges against each of the petitioners, inter alia, for the offences under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 7, 8, 13(2), 13(1) (d) PCA and for some of the accused for the substantive offence under Sections 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) PCA.
2. The present batch of four revision petitions arise from a common charge sheet filed by the CBI in RC No. 25(A)/2003-CBI/ACB/New Delhi. This concerns the unauthorised construction of a lift at a commercial complex at Mahavira
Background of the Lift Case Towers, IIIrd Floor, Paschim Vihar and is hereafter referred to as the `lift case?. The FIR in this case was registered on 3rd April 2003 under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13
(1) (d) PC Act. In this case Subhash Sharma (“Sharma”), the former Vice-Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) is accused No.1, Dharambir Khattar (“Khattar”) who allegedly worked as a middleman between public servants and private individuals is accused No.2, Ved Prakash Kaushik an individual and co-conspirator who helped in liaising with the DDA is accused No.3, Pradeep Kapur husband of Kavita Kapur, a partner of a firm M/s APY Hoteliers and Developers is accused No.4. Anil Wadhwa and Yashpal Manocha, the other two partners of the said firm are accused Nos. 5 and 6 respectively. The gist of the case is that the accused acted in criminal conspiracy to commit the aforementioned offences whereby Subhash Sharma used his official position to prevent the demolition of the unauthorised construction of the lift in the commercial complex and subsequently to get it authorized.
3. The charge sheet in the Lift Case was filed on 15th July 2004. According to the CBI, the facts and evidence gathered during the investigation revealed disclosed the commission by the accused of offences punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 7, 8, 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) and Section 15 of PCA and substantive offences against some of them. By the impugned order on charge dated 8th April 2008, after discussing the materials gathered by the CBI, the learned Special Judge, CBI discharged accused Yashpal Manocha and held that charges for the aforementioned offences should be framed against the remaining accused. By the subsequent order dated 16th April 2008 the learned Special Judge framed charges against each of the petitioners for the aforementioned offences.
4. The submissions of Mr.S.K.Rungta, learned Advocate on behalf of Dharambir Khattar, Mr.S.K.Saxena, learned Advocate on behalf of Subhash Sharma, Mr.H.P.Sharma, learned Advocate on behalf of Ved Prakash Sharma, Ms.Neelam Grover, learned Advocate on behalf of Pradeep Kapur and Anil Wadhwa and Mr.Dayan
Krishnan, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI have been heard.
Preliminary objection of the CBI as to maintainability.
5. A preliminary objection has been raised by the CBI about the maintainability of these revision petitions. It is submitted that in terms of Section 19 (3) (c) of PCA, no Court can exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings by the trial court. It is submitted that an order holding that charges are required to be framed against the accused and an order framing charges passed by the Special Court under the PCA are interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie to the High Court.
6. It is submitted that that while interpreting a similarly worded provision, viz., Section 11
(1) of the Special Courts Act 1979 (SCA), a Bench of four Judges of Supreme Co
