The central legal point established is that the Court should only interfere in an investigation in exceptional circumstances to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The petitioner, an Advocate, has filed this petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a direction to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to constitute an independent Special Investigating Team (SIT) or the Special Task Force (STF) for fair, unbiased, impartial and proper investigation of case FIR No.878/2000 of Police Station Kalkaji, New Delhi and to “expose the fake stamps scams and book all the persons involved in the crime”.

2. The petition was entertained and the respondent no.2 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) directed to file and has filed an affidavit and to which a rejoinder was filed by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner, in the petition has sought to justify the relief by pleading –

i) that though the accused in the FIR had disclosed getting supply of fake stamps from one Hemant Dubey of Mumbai but after the investigation of the case was taken over by the CBI, the CBI surprisingly not only gave a clean chit to the said Hemant Dubey but also cited him as a prosecution witness in the charge sheet;

ii) that from what has emerged in the investigation, it is evident that apart from the “Telgi Scam”, there was another fake stamp scam which was run parallel to Telgi Scam;

iii) that though the fake stamp scam of Abdul Karim Telgi had come to an end with the recovery of his printing press in June, 2002, the parallel scam of Hemant Dubey and others is yet to be unearthed.

4. The respondent no.2 CBI in its counter affidavit has pleaded that:-

i) The petition is based on baseless presumptions.

ii) The contention in the petition that the fake stamps recovered were printed by Hemant Dubey is devoid of any merits.

iii) Earlier also several writ petitions were filed by accused persons in fake stamp cases registered with CBI raising similar issues as in the present PIL and all the writ petitions were dismissed.

iv) Since the accused persons failed to scuttle the progress of the trial of the said cases, they have now got the present writ petition filed.

v) The role of Hemant Dubey was probed but except the allegation of accused Narender Singh nothing substantial came on record which could have formed the basis for prosecuting Hemant Dubey in the said cases.

vi) The cases relating to Telgi Fake Stamps Scam were assigned to CBI by the Supreme Court.

vii) The petitioner has a vested interest in filing this PIL; he wants to delay the course of trial of the said cases;

viii) The charge sheets filed by the CBI in fake stamps cases are supported with quality oral and documentary evidence and this fact has been approved by several judgments by different Courts in such cases wherein number of accused persons have already been convicted.

ix) Therefore it is wrong to say that the investigation by CBI is questionable.

x) The claim as made in this petition “of two fake stamps scams” has been made by some of the accused persons involved in RC-2/2003, EOU-VI and RC-3/2004, EOU-V to cover up their own role in the crime and to divert the course of investigation.

xi) The claim regarding another fake scam syndicate led by Hemant Dubey was investigated by the CBI and the outcome of the investigation has been discussed in the charge sheets filed in the Court.

xii) Specific role of Hemant Dubey was examined during investigation but nothing substantial emerged on record except the statement of accused persons who themselves were part of the same offence.

xiii) If the petitioner had reliable material evidence in support of his claim as is produced along with this PIL, then it is inexplicable as to why he kept silent for a long time and has filed this petition at a crucial stage.

xiv) Though the accused named Hemant Dubey but during investigation could not corroborate the same.

xv) The name of Hemant Dubey figures in the body of charge sheets because his involvement was suspected at initial stage; however further investigation in the case did not establish his role or involvement in the said cases.

xvi) After emergen