CRL. M.C. No. 2585/2021

Page 1 of 10

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: October 13, 2023

+

CRL.M.C. 2585/2021

DR HAMIDULLAH BHAT

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Mr. Chaitanya

Sundriyal, Mr. Zeeshan Thomas

and Ms. Manika Vohra, Advocates

Versus

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP with Ms.

Mishika Pandita, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

1.

The petitioner vide the present petition under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC], seeks quashing of Order

dated 25.08.2021 passed by Sh. Ajay Gulati, Ld. Special Judge (PC Act),

Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi in Case No.18/2020 titled „CBI vs Dr.

Hamidullah Bhat‟, and setting aside of Notice dated 27.08.2021 on

formal charge whereby the petitioner has been charged for commission of

offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention

of Corruption Act 1988 [PC Act].

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

been exonerated for the very same allegations of Disproportionate Assets

[DA] in the Departmental Enquiry [DE] initiated against him vide

findings dated 19.08.2011 which was accepted by the Disciplinary

Digitally Signed

By:BABLOO SHAH

Signing Date:19.10.2023

18:11:58

Signature Not Verified

CRL. M.C. No. 2585/2021

Page 2 of 10

Authority on 04.12.2012. He further submits that the Ld. Trial Court has,

in the impugned order dated 25.08.2021 on charge, out of the two

properties namely Eros Garden property and Noor Nagar property

involved herein, accepted the valuation of the Noor Nagarproperty at the

same rate as that in the DE, but rejected the valuation of the cost of

construction of the Eros Garden property. He submits that if the valuation

of the cost of construction of Eros Garden property is accepted, the total

DA amount is of Rs.85,000/- (approx. 1.5%), which is less than 10% DA

in terms of M. Krishna Reddy v. DSP, Hyderabad (1992) 4 SCC 45.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the judgment

dated 04.07.2022 of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP (Crl.)

1279/2021 titled Johnson Jacob v. State and order dated 31.08.2023 of

this Court in CRL.M.C. 1626/2023 titled Captain Arvind Kathpalia vs.

Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr., both of which rely on Ashoo

Surendranath Tewari vs Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI

& Anr (2020) 9 SCC 636, submits that the criminal prosecution against

the petitioner be quashed in light of the allegations, witnesses and

documents presented before the Inquiry Officer, and those proposed to be

presented and examined by Ld. Special Judge, (PC Act), are similar, if

not identical.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Central

Bureau of Investigation [CBI] was granted sanction to prosecute the

petitioner (erstwhile public servant) by the Sanctioning Authority vide

Sanction Letter dated 27.01.2020, without taking into account the

exoneration of the petitioner in the DE for the very same charge which is

Digitally Signed

By:BABLOO SHAH

Signing Date:19.10.2023

18:11:58

Signature Not Verified

CRL. M.C. No. 2585/2021

Page 3 of 10

contradictory to law established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBI vs

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014) 14 SCC 295.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that even otherwise

the Investigating Agency has committed multiple grave errors during the

investigation in assigning valuation to jewellery, household items and

other assets of the petitioner without any evidence, much less their

original valuation.

6.

Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on

Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (supra) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court

reiterated the test laid down in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal vs.

State of West Bengal (2011) 3 SCC 581 to submit that if the petitioner

h