IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Brijesh Sethi, J.
Rajiv Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7978 of 2020, 8021 of 2020, 8617 of 2020, 8620 of 2020; Civil Miscellaneous No. 26125 of 2020, 27790 of 2020
Decided On : 23-11-2020
The High Court held that the decision-making process under Section 378 Cr.P.C. is in the realm of subjective satisfaction of the Government, which need not be scrutinized by the Court and the only enquiry that the Court must limit itself is to find out whether the Public Prosecutor has acted on the direction of the appropriate Government.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were accused in the 2G spectrum case, filed writ petitions challenging the filing of a criminal leave petition by the CBI against their acquittal. The petitioners argued that the CBI did not have the authority to file the appeal, that the sanction of the Central Government was not obtained in accordance with the law, and that the appeal was not filed by a duly authorized Special Public Prosecutor.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the decision to file an appeal under Section 378(2) Cr.P.C. is a subjective satisfaction of the Government and is not subject to judicial review. The Court further held that the sanction of the Central Government was not required to be in a particular form and that the appeal was filed by a duly authorized Special Public Prosecutor.
Issues: 1. Whether the decision to file an appeal under Section 378(2) Cr.P.C. is subject to judicial review. 2. Whether the sanction of the Central Government is required to be in a particular form. 3. Whether the appeal was filed by a duly authorized Special Public Prosecutor.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The decision to file an appeal under Section 378(2) Cr.P.C. is a subjective satisfaction of the Government and is not subject to judicial review. 2. The sanction of the Central Government is not required to be in a particular form. 3. The appeal was filed by a duly authorized Special Public Prosecutor.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the decision to file an appeal under Section 378(2) Cr.P.C. is a subjective satisfaction of the Government and is not subject to judicial review. The Court further held that the sanction of the Central Government was not required to be in a particular form and that the appeal was filed by a duly authorized Special Public Prosecutor.
JUDGMENT
Brijesh Sethi, J. - The relief sought in these petitions mainly relates to Crl.L.P.185/2018, titled as Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. A.Raja & Ors., which is pending consideration before this Court. The Crl.L.P. 185/2018 arise out of FIR bearing No. RC DAI 2009 A 0045, registered on 21st October, 2009 by the Central Bureau of Investigation, wherein the applicants/ petitioners were charged for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("PC Act") and Indian Penal Code, 1860 IPC. Vide impugned judgment dated 21st December, 2017, the present applicants were acquitted of the charge to commit conspiracy for the offences under Sections 409/ 420/ 467 IPC and under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Against the impugned judgment of 21st December, 2017, the Crl.L.P.185/2018 has been preferred by the CBI seeking ''leave to appeal''.
2. The above captioned first petition W.P.(C) 7978/2020 has been filed by petitioner- Rajiv Agarwal (respondent No.14 in Crl.L.P.185/2018); the second captioned petition W.P.(C) 8021/20200 has been filed by petitioner-Siddharth Behura (respondent No.2 in Crl.L.P.185/2018); the third captioned petition W.P.(C) 8617/2010 has been filed by petitioner-R.K.Chandolia (respondent No. 3 in Crl.L.P.185/2018) and the fourth captioned petition W.P.(C) 8620/2020 has been filed by petitioner-Sharad Kumar (respondent No.16 in Crl.L.P.185/2018).
3. The fulcrum of these petitions rests upon applications Crl.M.A. 13703/2020 (filed by respondent No.13); Crl.M.A. 13851/2020 (filed by respondent No.2) & Crl.M.A. 14091/2020 (filed by respondent No.13) in Crl.L.P.185/2018 vide which these applicants had sought a direction to CBI to place on record copy of mandatory approval with complete file maintained by the Government, containing all note sheets, reports, drafts, letters, correspondence etc. under Section 378(2) Cr.P.C. as well as approval/ notification under Section 24(8) Cr.P.C. in favour of Mr.Sanjeev Bhandari, Special Public Prosecutor authorizing him to file the criminal leave to appeal. During the course of arguments in these applications, CBI had placed before this Court Communication dated 17th January, 2018 of the Government of India opining that it was a fit case to prefer an appeal against the judgment dated 21st December, 2017 passed by the learned Special Judge in CC No. 01 & 1A/2011 (RC.DAI.2009.A.0045) i.e. the 2G case and decision to engage Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned ASG to represent in the case. The communication of 17th January, 2018 reads as under:-
| Most Immediate |
| Government of India |
| Subject- Filing of Criminal Appeal in Hon'ble Delhi High Court under Cr.PC against the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2017 of Ld. Special Judge in CC No. 01 & 1A/2011 (RC.DAI.2009.A.0045) reg. |
| CBI may kindly refer to their letter No. 184/RC.DAI.2009.A 0045 dated 05.01.2018 on the above subject. |
| 2. The proposal of CBI to file Criminal Appeal before Hon'ble Delhi High Court under Cr.PC against the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2017 of Ld. Special Judge in CC No. 01 & 1A/2011 (RC.DAI.2009.A.0045) has been examined in consultation with ALA, D/o Legal Affairs (DOLA), M/o Law & Justice. ALA, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Legal has opined inter alia that is a fit case to prefer an appeal. A copy of the advice conveyed by Department of Legal Affairs is enclosed herewith. |
| 3. It has also been decided to engage Ld. ASG, Shri Tushar Mehta in the above case. Necessary further action may be taken in the matter accordingly. |
| |
Tata Cellular Vs Union of India
Vishnu vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and Ors.
State of Rajasthan vs. Manbhar
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Union of India
State of Karnataka vs. Ameerjan
State of Bihar vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari
Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India and Ors.
Padma Sundara Rao vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Nitya Dharmananda alias K. Lenin & Anr. vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy
MRF Limited vs. Manohar Parrikar and Others
Mohd. Iqubal Ahmed vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. vs. Horton
Khetrabasi Samual & Ors vs. State of Orissa
Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel
J.P. Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan
Indian Railway Construction Co. vs. Ajay Kumar
Home Office vs. Dorset Yacht Co.
Herrington vs. British Railways Board
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.