IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Jatinder Pal Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
CRL. M.C. 3118 of 2012
Decided On : 17-01-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7/8/11/13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) - Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120-B - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Section 5 -Quash of order - Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction - whether the impugned order framing charges is an interlocutory order and hence, does it attract the bar of Section 397(2) of the Code, ousting the powers of revision in relation to interlocutory orders - scope of Section 65B of the Evidence Act - electronic records.
Finding of the Court :
As per Section 107 of the IPC, an offence of abetment takes place in one of the three ways namely : (i) by instigation, (ii) by engaging in conspiracy for doing that thing and if an act or illegal omission takes place pursuant of that conspiracy; and (iii) by intentional aiding - A mere intention or preparation to instigate is neither instigation nor abetment - charge does not render a conclusive finding with respect to guilt or innocence of the accused.
Result : Disposed of
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
1. The Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant petition under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Code”) for setting aside the order of the Court below dated 1st June 2012, whereby common charges had been framed against the accused including Jatinder Pal Singh (hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner”) and the consequential order dated 4th June 2012 framing individual charges against the Petitioner in the case titled as “CBI v. Ketan Desai and Others” pending before Special Judge CBI-5, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsels for parties, it is essential to highlight the factual background of the instant matter which is stated hereunder :
(ii) The prosecution’s version is that on the basis of reliable and specific information, CBI Special Unit, New Delhi had placed the mobile phones under telephonic surveillance during the period when MCI received the application for renewal of permission from GSMCH, Patiala for admission into 4th Batch of the MBBS course. The investigation further revealed that criminal conspiracy to obtain favors in the form of recommendation for permission for admission into fourth year batch for MBBS course began after deficiencies were pointed out during first inspection of GSMCH, Patiala. Accordingly, the aforementioned FIR was registered against the accused persons on the allegations as aforesaid.
(iii) Subsequently, on 22nd April 2010 recovery was made wherein Dr. Kamaljeet Singh was intercepted while allegedly delivering a sum of Rs. 2 crores, as illegal gratification for the aforementioned purpose, at the residence of the Petitioner by the income tax authorities and liquor bottles were seized by the police authorities.
(iv) Upon the completion of the investigation, the Final Report under Section 173 of the Code was filed on 16th September 2011 under Sections 7/8/12/13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act along with Section 120-B of the IPC in the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
(v) Trial Court took cognizance of the same on 10th October 2011. The copies of the documents relied upon were supplied to the accused persons including the Petitioner. After hearing the arguments on charge, the Trial Court on 1st June 2012 passed a common order on charge under Sections 7/8/12/13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act along with Section 120B of the IPC as well as an individual order on charge on 4th June 2012 against the petitioner under Section 12 of the PC Act.
(vi) Aggrieved by the aforementioned orders, the Petitioner has approached this Court, under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code, praying for setting aside the impugned orders.
3. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Rev. P. 493/2012, vide i
Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak
Anur Kumar Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299
B. Saha and Others Vs.M.S. Kochar
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi)
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra
Mukut Bihari v. State of Rajasthan
Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar v. State of Maharashtra
Nitya Dharmananda @K. Lenin and Anr. v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy
P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578
Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 16 SCC 117
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India
Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab
Santosh Kumari v. State of J&K
Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P.
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu
State of Haryana and Ors. vs Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 604
State of Karnataka v. C. Nagarajswamy
State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa
State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma
State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu (2017) 3 SCC 198
Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia
T. Subramanian v. State of T.N.
TT Anthony v. State of Kerala reported at (2001) 6 SCC 181
Point of Law : When the allegations against an accused do not constitute an offence, even if such allegations are presumed to be true, a Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code to....
Considered opinion that Call Nos. 48 and 51, heavily relied upon by the prosecution, lack object and purpose to prove the complicity of the respondent herein in the crime.
Charges under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act require a substantive offence to be present and can be altered by the court before judgment, according to legal precedents.
Prosecution sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be granted with independent application of mind; failure to comply invalidates proceedings.
Test of admissibility of evidence lies in its relevancy, unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law evidence obtained as a result of illegal search....
The court ruled that charges framed against an accused must have sufficient evidence of demand and acceptance to uphold prosecutorial validity; otherwise, it constitutes an infringement of fundamenta....
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and electronic evidence must comply with Section 65-B of t....
The demand and offer of bribe are essential for charging an accused under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and intercepted conversations used as evidence must adhere to the mandated pr....
Charges under corruption laws must include proof of demand for illegal gratification, which the prosecution failed to provide.
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.