The High Court upheld the trial court's discretion regarding further investigation, ruling that no illegality was found in the prior investigations conducted by CBI.

JUDGMENT

Raj Beer Singh, J.

This application under Section 482 /483 CrPC has been filed against the order dated 06.03.2023, passed by learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI), Court No. 2, Ghaziabad, in Special Case No. 01/2016, Case Crime No. RC1202014A0004 under Section 120-B, 201, 477-A IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act. It is further prayed that a direction for further investigation be made regarding role played by the senior officers of BDFP, Mathura and that the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI), Court No. 2, Ghaziabad, be directed to thoroughly consider the report submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred as CBI) pursuant to the order dated 22.10.2016 and to pass appropriate order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for C.B.I.

3. Perusal of record shows that this case was registered by the CBI against applicant No. 1 Animesh Verma, applicant No. 2 Ashok Kumar Yadav and one Avdhesh Kumar and some unknown persons for offences under Section 120-B, 409, 201 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(c) & (d) Prevention of Corruption Act. As per persecution version, the accused persons including applicants, have committed offence of criminal conspiracy, cheating, breach of trust by public servants, disappearance of evidence, falsification of computer accounts and criminal misconduct and thereby, they caused loss to Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) to the tune of Rs. 87,31,537.29/-. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against accused Animesh Verma, Ashok Kumar Yadav, Avdhesh Kumar, Kitab Singh, Ballo, Amritlal, Hari Singh, Suresh Chand Agrawal and Santosh Kumar. It appears that after framing of charges while the trial of the case was in progress, an application was moved on behalf of the accused/applicant No. 1 Animesh Verma, alleging that by order dated 22.10.2016, the trial court has made direction for further investigation regarding involvement of higher officials of BDFP, Mathura but in compliance of the said order, no report has been submitted by the CBI in the court, whereas, a period of five years has passed. It was also alleged in the application that the applicant/accused No. 1 Animesh Verma is facing six other cases and thus, before proceeding further in the trial, it is necessary that all necessary facts are brought before the court and thus, the report be called from the CBI regarding compliance of order dated 22.10.2016. It appears that against that application, CBI filed objections and one report dated 28.09.2017 was also filed in compliance of order dated 22.10.2016. Perusal of record further shows that the applicant/accused No. 1 Animesh Verma has filed counter objections vide paper No. 860-Kha, alleging that the report of further investigation has not been submitted in the prescribed proforma and that further investigation has not been conducted in accordance with law. It was alleged that the CBI was trying to save the higher officials of Bitumen Drum Filling Plant (BDFP), Mathura. The CBI did not investigate the role of higher officials of IOCL by considering Operation Manual of IOCL. Several other points were also raised and it was allege