IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Brijesh Sethi, J.
Central Bureau Of Investigation - Appellant
Versus
A. Raja & Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 13703 of 2020, 13851 of 2020, 14091 of 2020; Criminal Leave Petition No. 185 of 2018
Decided On : 23-11-2020
Whether the Public Prosecutor was authorized to file the leave petition or not. According to learned ASG, as per notification dated 6th March, 2014 issued by Government of India, Mr.Sanjeev Bhandari, Advocate was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor for the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct trials of all the appeals, revisions and other matters before this Court, which arise out of investigation by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI).
Fact of the Case:
2G matters were class of cases, the Hon’ble Apex Court had appointed Special Public Prosecutors during the trial. However, the documents referred to by the learned ASG do not meet the requirements with regard to appointment of Special Public Prosecutor in the instant petition. The notification by virtue of which Mr.Sanjeev Bhandari, Advocate has been appointed as Special Public Prosecutor to represent CBI in Delhi High Court in all the appeals, revisions and other proceedings arising out of investigation carried out by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, is dated 6th March, 2014. He was, therefore, appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor in Delhi High Court for CBI cases or appeals much before the pronouncement of the impugned judgment dated 21st December, 2017. Whereas in the instant appeal which is of a special class category, a Special Public Prosecutor was required to be appointed under Section 24(8) of Cr.P.C. for filing appeal after passing of the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The essence of Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. or Section 378(2) Cr.P.C. is the presentation of the appeal to the High Court and not the preceding steps leading to the same, namely, the process of the formation of the opinion, the subjective satisfaction or the decision of the State Government or the consequential direction to present such an appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the Public Prosecutor was authorized to file the leave petition or not. 2. Whether the Government is under any obligation by virtue of any provision of law to place on record the documents i.e. note sheets, letters, correspondence or approval to file an appeal and it is also not mandated by Section 378 (2) Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appointment of Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, learned Special Public Prosecutor to file the leave to appeal and Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned ASG to conduct the same, is in consonance with law. 2. The order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 12th March, 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10660 of 2010 (Supra) has dispelled all the doubts and has categorically stated that Special Public Prosecutor in 2G case was appointed for the purpose of conducting trials only before learned Special Judge and Central Government was free to appoint anyone post trial.
Final Decision: These applications are dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Brijesh Sethi, J. - Crl.M.A. 13703/2020 (by R-13); Crl.M.A. 13851/2020 (by R-2) & Crl.M.A. 14091/2020 (supplementary application by R-13)
1. Vide this common order, this Court will dispose of the above captioned three applications. Vide first application [Crl.M.A. 13703/2020], applicant/respondent No.13- Asif Yusuf Balwa is seeking necessary direction to the petitioner to furnish copy of mandatory approval under Section 378(2) Cr.P.C. obtained by the petitioner i.e. CBI along with concerned note sheets, reports, drafts, letters and correspondence to file the present appeal. Vide second application [Crl.M.A. 13851/2020], applicant/ respondent No.2- Siddharth Behura is also seeking 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. Applicant/respondent No.2 is seeking copy of approval/ notification under Section 24(8) Cr.P.C. in favour of Mr.Sanjeev Bhandari, Special Public Prosecutor authorizing him to file the instant petition. The prayer made by the respondents runs as follows:-
Crl.M.A. 13703/2020 & Crl.M.A14091/2020
PRAYER
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon''ble Court be pleased to:
(a) Pass necessary orders and directions to Appellant to place on record all the documents through official mode with affidavit, which have been shared by the Appellant with the respondents over email.
(b) Pass necessary orders and directions to Appellant to place on record all the Truncated documents along with its enclosures therein, so that proper sense can be out of the documents.
(c) Pass any other order(s) and direction(s) in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
Crl.M.A. 13851/2020
PRAYER
It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon''ble Court be pleased to:
(a) Pass necessary orders and directions, to the Appellant for supply of copy of mandatory approval alongwith the complete file maintained by the concerned government department containing all the note sheets, reports, drafts, letters and correspondences etc., if any, obtained by the Appellant under Section 378 (2) of Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 to file the captioned Appeal.
(b) Pass necessary orders and directions, to the Appellant for supply of copy of the approval/notification under Section 24 (8) Cr.P.C of Sh. Sanjeev Bhandari, Spl Public Prosecutor who has filed captioned Appeal alongwith the Criminal leave application;
(c) Pass any other order(s) and direction(s) in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No.13 submitted that the allegations levelled against the present applicant with other accused was of intentionally aiding and facilitating the payment of alleged quid pro-quo of Rs.200 crores as a reward for alleged undue favours shown to company M/s Swan Telecom Private Limited. Learned Special Court vide order dated 21st December, 2017 had acquitted all the accused persons including the present applicant. Thereafter, the petitioner/CBI has filed the instant leave to appeal against the said order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Court on 21st December, 2017. Learned counsel for applicant/respondent No.13 has, however, submitted that this Court cannot hear and decide the petition seeking ''leave to appeal'' unless petitioner/CBI places the mandatory approval u/S 378(2) Cr.P.C. on record.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No.13 had drawn attention of this Court to Section 378 of Cr.P.C. Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, learned counsel submitted that in terms of sub section 2(b) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. and Chapter 23 of CBI Manual, it is mandatory to obtain sanction/approval before filing the appeal/petition. He further submitted that appeal against acquittal cannot be filed without the directions/ sanctio
Adbul Khader Musliar vs. State
Additional District Magistrate vs. State of Jabalpur
Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Carona Ltd. vs. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons
Dharani Sugars & Chemicals Limited vs. Union of India
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra
In Re Special Courts Bill, (1978)
K. Anbazhagan vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
KathiRaningRawat vs. State of Saurashtra
LachmandasKewalram Ahuja vs. State of Bombay
Management of the Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. vs. Workers and Others
Mohd. Iqubai Ahmed vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Poonamchand Jain vs. State of M.P.
Rajendra Nigam vs. State of MP
State of Karnataka vs. Ameerjaan
State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh
State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar
State represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai vs. N.S.Gnaneswaran
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.