http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 5

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 353 of 2007

PETITIONER:

Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr

RESPONDENT:

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/03/2007

BENCH:

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

(Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1307 OF 2007)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 354 OF 2007

(Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1326 OF 2007)

Union of India ... Appellant(s)

Versus

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

Crl.A. No. 353 of 2007 @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No. 1307 of

2007

Leave granted.

The above appeal was filed by the Central Bureau of

Investigation, New Delhi and the Director, C.B.I., New

Delhi against the interlocutory judgment and order dated

21.2.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New

Delhi in W.P. (Crl.) No. 1401 of 2002 whereby the High

Court directed inspection of records of the files relating to

the grant of sanction for prosecution of respondent No.1

(Ashok Kumar Aggarwal) prior to the prosecution leading

evidence in the trial Court.

Crl.A. No. \005\005..of 2007 @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No. 1326 of

2007

Leave granted.

This appeal was filed by the Union of India against

the interlocutory judgment and order dated 21.2.2007

passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in

W.P.(Crl.) No. 1401/2002 whereby the High Court

granted inspection of the notings of the Finance Minister

to the accused owing to the fact that the same had been

adverted to in the affidavit filed by the appellant.

By consent of the parties, both the appeals were

taken up for hearing together.

We heard Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned

Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellants

and Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel,

appearing for respondent No.1.

Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned ASG, invited our

attention to the various proceedings and the orders

passed thereon and also the impugned judgment dated

21.2.2007. He invited our attention to the earlier order

passed by this Court on October 11, 2006 in Criminal

Appeal No. 1038 of 2006 filed by the Central Bureau of

Investigation against the very same first respondent. The

said order reads thus:

"Leave granted.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 5

Heard Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned

Additional Solicitor General for the appellant and Mr.

Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing for

the contesting respondent No.1, Mr. Ashok Kumar

Aggarwal.

The appellants have filed the above appeal

against the interlocutory order dated 25.4.2006 passed

by the High Court of Delhi in Crl.Misc. No. 1653 of

2006 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 1401 of 2002. The impugned

order reads thus:

"W.P.(Crl.)No. 1401/2002.

Rule.

Learned counsel Mr. Dayan Krishnan for

respondents 1 and 2 submits that the admission of

petition should not come in his way to object to the

maintainability of the petition.

Mr. Jethmalani has no objection to that.

List the petition for hearing on 21st August,

2006.

Sd/-

Manomohan Sarin, Judge

J.M. Malik, Judge

April 25, 2006."

The matter was argued herein by both the

learned senior counsel for some time. Later, both the

learned senior counsel agreed that the High Court

itself may be requested to dispose of the preliminary

issued in regard to the maintainability of the writ

petition as expeditiously as possible since the matter is

pending before one forum or the other for a long time.

It is represented that Writ Petition (Crl.) No.

1401/2002 is listed for hearing before the High Court

on 30.10.2006. We, therefore, request the Hon’ble

Acting Chief Justice of the High Court to place this

matter before a Division Bench to consider the

question of maintainability of the writ petition on the

same date itself. Liberty is reserved to both parties to

approach the Division Bench for other reliefs as well.

The Criminal Appeal stands disposed of

accordingly. The Re