Joint Director, Directorate Of Enforcement vs A. Raja

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Del) 1019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Brijesh Sethi, J.
Joint Director, Directorate Of Enforcement - Appellant
Versus
A. Raja & Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 11718 of 2020, 11888 of 2020, 11890 of 2020; Criminal Leave Petition No. 184 of 2018, 185 of 2018, 257 of 2018
Decided On : 29-09-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Sanjay Jain, Advocate, Sonia Mathur, Advocate, Naveen Matta, Advocate, Amit Mahajan, Advocate, Padmesh Mishra, Advocate, Arkaj Kumar, Advocate, Noor Rampal, Advocate, Mallika Hiremath, Advocate, Sudhir Kumar, Advocate, Manu Sharma, Advocate, Vijay Aggarwal, Advocate, Mudit Jain, Advocate, Ashul Aggarwal, Advocate, Shailesh Pandey, Advocate, Barkha Rastogi, Advocate, Hardik Sharma, Advocate, Mahesh Agarwal, Advocate, Rishi Agrawala, Advocate, Niyati Kohli, Advocate, Pratham Vir Agarwal, Advocate, Sandeep Kapur, Advocate, Vir Inder Pal Singh Sandhu, Advocate, Abhimanshu Dhyani, Advocate, Sahil Modi, Advocate, Balaji Subramanian, Advocate, Ishani Banerjee, Advocate, Sudershan Rajan, Advocate, Hitain Bajaj, Advocate, Rohit Kumar, Advocate, Tarannum Cheema, Advocate, Akshay Nagarajan, Advocate, Varun Sharma, Advocate, Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Advocate, Rishi Raj Sharma, Advocate, Inspector Manoj, Advocate, Vedanta Varma, Advocate, Pratham Veer Aggarwal, Advocate, D.P. Singh, Advocate, Sonam Gupta, Advocate, Ishita Jain, Advocate, Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocate, Mohit Kumar Auluck, Advocate, Pramod Sharma, Advocate, Manali Singhal, Advocate, Santosh Sachin, Advocate, Deepak S Rawat, Advocate, Aanchal Kapoor, Advocate, Joseph Aristotle S, Advocate, Neha Nagpal, Advocate, Vishvendra Tomar, Advocate, Dayan Krishnan, Advocate, Arshdeep Singh, Advocate, Hitesh Rai, Advocate, Sanjay Abot, Advocate

Headnote:
Criminal Leave Petitions - Early Hearing - Section 3 of PMLA, Section 4 of PMLA, Sections 420/409/468/471/193 IPC r/w section 120 B IPC r/w sections 7/11/12/13 (2) r/w section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 420 IPC r/w section 120B IPC - Crl.L.P.184/2018, Crl.L.P.185/2018, Crl.L.P.257/2018 - 3 of PMLA, 4 of PMLA, 420/409/468/471/193 IPC r/w 120 B IPC r/w 7/11/12/13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, 420 IPC r/w 120B IPC - The court discussed the urgency of the case, the impact of Covid-19 on court proceedings, and the voluminous nature of the evidence. The court emphasized the duty to conclude part-heard matters before demitting office and allowed the applications for early hearing, scheduling the petitions for day-to-day basis hearing.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Directorate of Enforcement (ED), sought early hearing of criminal leave petitions against the judgment acquitting all the respondents for various offences. The petitions were connected to a common FIR and had similar facts. The petitioners argued that the impugned judgment failed to appreciate the evidence and adversely affected the government's interest. The respondents opposed the early hearing, citing the Covid-19 pandemic, voluminous record, and lack of urgency.
Finding of the Court:

The court acknowledged the concerns raised by the respondents regarding the urgency of other pending cases and the voluminous nature of the evidence. However, it emphasized the duty to conclude part-heard matters before demitting office and allowed the applications for early hearing, scheduling the petitions for day-to-day basis hearing.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should allow early hearing of the criminal leave petitions in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, voluminous evidence, and the urgency of other pending cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the duty to conclude part-heard matters before demitting office, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on court proceedings, and the need to avoid unnecessary delay and burden on the public exchequer.
Final Decision: The court allowed the applications for early hearing, scheduling the petitions for day-to-day basis hearing, and emphasized the duty to conclude part-heard matters before demitting office.

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Sethi, J. - Vide these applications, petitioners Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Directorate of Enforcement (ED) are seeking early hearing of the criminal leave petitions. These petitions have been filed seeking ''leave to appeal'' against the judgment dated 21st December, 2017 passed by learned Special Judge acquitting all the respondents for the offences charged against them, which are as under:-

I.	In Crl.L.P.184/2018	u/s 3 of PMLA and punishable under Section 4 of PMLA
II.	In Crl.L.P.185/2018	sections 420/409/468/471/193 IPC r/w section 120 B IPC r/w sections 7/11/12/13 (2) r/w section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
III.	Crl.L.P.257/2018	Section 420 IPC r/w section 120B IPC

2. It is averred in the applications that all the three petitions arise out of common FIR and have similar set of facts and, therefore, upon the directions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, these petitions have always been heard together. It is submitted that facts in Crl.L.P. 185/2018 are connected to that in Crl.L.P. 184/2018 and acquittal of respondents in Crl.L.P. 185/2018 has resulted in acquittal of respondents in Crl.L.P.184/2018 and release of attached properties as well, which involved trial of the ''Scheduled Offence''. It is stated that arguments in Crl.L.P.184/2018 would invariably flow from the arguments in the CBI matter.

3. At the time of hearing, Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned ASG appearing for petitioners submitted that while passing the impugned judgment dated 21st December, 2017, the learned Special Court has failed to appreciate clinching evidence available on record and has not appreciated it in the correct perspective. It was submitted that the impugned acquittal order has adversely affected the interest of the Government of India and public exchequer in other related proceedings. Learned ASG pointed out that in Crl.L.P.185/2018, arguments on grant of ''leave to appeal'' have already been concluded by the petitioner-CBI and the matter is now ''part heard'' before this Bench. Learned ASG submitted that on 5th March, 2020, this Court had fixed the date of hearing for 24th, 25th and 26th March, 2020 but due to Covid 19, physical hearing in Courts stood suspended and hearing could not take place and now the matter is listed for hearing in October, 2020. It is stated that since March, 2020 the matter has not been heard at all and, therefore, these applications deserve to be allowed and these petitions be heard expeditiously. Learned ASG submitted that the instant petitions have great public importance involving issues of integrity amongst the government functioning, which has placed Union of India in a vulnerable position not only in India but globally, and therefore, these petitions be heard and decided early to unearth the truth so that the guilty persons be punished under the law of the land to maintain deterrent effect on the society.

4. Learned ASG further submitted that since this Court is to demit the office on 30th November, 2020 and if arguments remain inconclusive, the petitioners will have to address the arguments afresh.

5. Replies to the applications have been filed on behalf of respondent No.4 in Crl.L.P.184/2018; respondents No.3 & 11 in Crl.L.P.185/2018 and respondents No.6 & 8 in Crl.L.P.257/2018. Lengthy arguments have been addressed by learned counsels for the parties on these applications for two consecutive days.

6. Mr. Manu Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 in Crl.L.P.184/2018 and Crl.L.P.185/2018 opposed the early hearing applications by stating that during Covid 19 pandemic, physical hearing of the cases is not possible and through video conferencing, only urgent matters are being taken up and petitioners have not approached this Court giving any cogent reason as to why preference for hearing shou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2020 Supreme(Del) 1019

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis