Advocates:
['NAVNEET KAUSHIK', '', 'V P BAHUGUNA', 'SANDEEP TANDON']

Reserved Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL

Criminal Revision No. 313 of 2016

Ram Sagar

……….

Revisionist

versus

Central Bureau of Investigation ..…… Respondent

with

Criminal Revision No. 314 of 2016

Ram Sagar

……….

Revisionist

versus

Central Bureau of Investigation ..…… Respondent

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the revisionist.

Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the respondent CBI.

[Per: Hon’ble Lok Pal Singh, J.]

Both the criminal revisions are directed

against the order dated 05.12.2015, passed by

Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI), Dehradun,

whereby charges were framed against the revisionist

under Sections 120B, 420, 477A in C.B.I. case no.

04 of 2014, as also under Sections 120B, 420 of

IPC, in C.B.I. case no. 05 of 2014, both titled as

C.B.I. vs Ram Sagar.

2)

Earlier both the criminal revisions were

dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order

2

dated 15.11.2018 holding that sanction under

Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not required to prosecute

the revisionist. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment

dated 15.11.2018, revisionist preferred two criminal

appeals, bearing Criminal Appeal no. 1763 of 2019

and Criminal appeal no. 1764 of 2019, both titled,

Ram Sagar Vs Central bureau of Investigation,

before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex

Court

vide

its

judgment

and

order

dated

26.11.2019, allowed both the appeals and remitted

the matter to this Court to decide afresh, in

accordance with law.

3)

Said judgment and order passed by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in both the appeals, is extracted

hereunder:

“Leave granted.

The High Court, in our considered opinion,

has not considered the allegations made in the

charge-sheet relating to the contract matter. It

has dealt with only in respect of the appointments

and interpolation of the record. We also find that

the reasons assigned are not sufficient to come to

the conclusion. Therefore, in our considered

opinion, interest of justice would be met in case

the matter is reheard by the High Court so as to

enable both the parties to put forth their

respective case.

The impugned judgment is set aside. The

matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh

hearing on the aspect of framing of charge /

discharge based on the material on record

collected in both the charge sheets.

The appeals are, accordingly, allowed. We

hope and trust that the High Court will decide the

matter as mentioned supra at an early date.”

4)

Before proceeding to decide both the

revisions on merit, this Court feels it necessary to

state that arguments were advanced before this

Court that due to lack of sanction under Section

197 of Cr.P.C., the prosecution cannot continue

3

against the revisionist, but while filing the appeals

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court a new plea was

raised that this Court has not considered the aspect

of framing of charge / discharge based on the

material on record collected in both the charge

sheets and having considered the submissions

advanced on behalf of the revisionist, Hon’ble Apex

Court has passed the aforesaid order. A perusal of

the grounds of criminal revisions would depict that

the revisionist has not raised any ground that no

prima facie evidence is available on record which

lead to framing of charges against the revisionist.

In view of the directions issued by Hon’ble Apex

Court, this Court is under obligation to decide these

criminal revisions afresh.

5)

Brief facts of the case are that the

revisionist Ram Sagar was the Director, Aryabhatta

Research

Institute

of

Observational

Sciences

(ARIES), Manora Peak, Nainital at the relevant point

of time. Instant case was registered in CBI,

Dehradun Branch on the order dated 16.04.2013 of

this Court, passed in WPPIL no. 07 of 2012, filed by

Sri D.N. Bh