JUDGMENT(Oral)

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks to set aside/Quash the Order and Judgment on charge dated 29.01.2019 and framing of charge and order dated 05.02.2019 passed by learned Special Judge CBI-011, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in CBI No. 52/2016 (old NO. 64/2008) Chander Lok CGHS Ltd.

2. Case of the petitioner is that after incorporation/registration of any CGHS, resignation by its members and joining of new members is permitted under law. No previous member has reported any illegality/irregularity in the matter of their memberships. In any case any such irregularity in the matter of management of CGHS has to be dealt under the relevant provisions of the Delhi Co operative Societies Act and not under the penal provisions of any law.

3. Learned counsel on behalf of petitioner further submits that consequent to the amendment in the Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act, 2018(16 of 2018), dated 26.07.2018 vide SO 3664(E), 26.07.2018, Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been omitted and nothing survives in the chargesheet.

4. Learned counsel on behalf of petitioner further submits that there is nothing on record, which contemplates to fulfill the requirement as enumerated in section 154 of Cr. P.C., so if the registration of FIR/RC is inadmissible and illegal in that event consequential investigation carried out by the CBI as well as the chargesheet filed before this Court is inadmissible in law and the petitioner is entitled to be discharged on this ground.

5. Learned counsel on behalf of petitioner further submits that another important aspect with regard to the registration of the FIR/RC as well as the investigation carried out by the CBI in the present case is that the CBI has no Jurisdiction to even register the FIR. In this regard it is submitted that the CBI is an organ of State which has been formed under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for the investigation of specific offences notified under section 3 of the said Act. The aforesaid FIR has been registered by the CBI on the directions of this Court vide order dated 03.10.2005 in WP(C) No. 10066/2004 which itself has no bearing in the eyes of law. As per the provisions of section 3, 5 & 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the power of the CBI to carry out investigation is restricted to whatever provided by way of notification. In the absence of any such notification the CBI is statutorily debarred from entering into the arena of the investigation to any offence committed by any individual.

6. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the allegations contained in the chargesheet against the present petitioner are that he has been allegedly shown as Vice President of the society which itself is inadmissible as it is the admitted case of the CBI that the society was under the control of Shri S.P. Saxena and Shri Srichand. There is no such disclosure statement on record. Nothing incriminating has come on record against the Petitioner/accused Neeraj Mahajan (A-13) which would become basis of prima facie allegations to frame the charge. Regarding the allegations of writings of petitioner confirmed by GEQD opinion is that the specimen of the Petitioner has not been obtained with prior permission of the Court. Even the opinion of GEQD is not applicable as enumerated by this Court in case of "Rakesh Kumar V/s State, 2004(1) JCC 110.

7. Thus, it is made clear that the face value of the allegations, made in the chargesheet, do not disclose the commission of any offence mentioned therein and the petitioner is entitled to be discharged and more particularly there is no permission/order of Special Judge is on record, which empowers CBI to obtain hand writings and signatures of the petitioner and thus, he is liable to be discharged on this ground.

8. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that as per the allegations contained in the chargesheet, the CBI has appr