Full Text
Translation output
$-39, 40 & 41 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i)+ CRL.M.C. 1168/2012 & CrLM.A.No.4133/2012
R D SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.Hariharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.K.Pathy, Advocate
R D SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.Hariharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.K.Pathy, Advocate
VERSUS
CBI Respondent
Through: Mr. Sushil Kr. Dubey, Advocate for Ms. Sonia Mathur, Standing Counsel for CBI
(ii)+ W.P.(CRL) 1392/2012 & Crl.M.A.Nos. 17215-17216/2012
D S RAWAT Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manish Kr. Singh, Advocate
Through: Mr. Sushil Kr. Dubey, Advocate for Ms. Sonia Mathur, Standing Counsel for CBI
(ii)+ W.P.(CRL) 1392/2012 & Crl.M.A.Nos. 17215-17216/2012
D S RAWAT Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manish Kr. Singh, Advocate
VERSUS
CBI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI with Mr. Manoj Pant, Advocate
(iii) + CRL.M.C. 1587/2012 SUMER SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dheeraj Garg, Advocate
Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI with Mr. Manoj Pant, Advocate
(iii) + CRL.M.C. 1587/2012 SUMER SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dheeraj Garg, Advocate
VERSUS
CENTRALBUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Respondent
Through: Mr. Sushil Kjt. Dubey, Advocate for Ms. Sonia Mathur, Standing Counsel for CBI
Crl.M.C.Nos.ll68,1392 & 1587 of 2012 Page 1 2013:DHC:6755 i
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR order
0/„ 10.10.2013
In the above-titled three petitions order of 9' February, 2012 in^pugttediscommor,one,therefore,withtheeonsentoflearnedcounselfor the parties, above-captioned petitioners were heard together and are emg disposed ofby this common order. _
Impugned order of9" February, 2012 rejects petitioners' application for droppingofproceedings for wantofproper sanctionto prosecutethem.
Operativeportionofthe impugnedorderreads as under:-
"In view ofthe above said legalpositionpropounded by the Hon-ble Supreme Court in Bharat Pankh v. CBI and
Anr (supra) andalsofollowed in K.Selvam Case (supra) the question ofeompetence ofsanction order cannot be assessed midway. The question as to the vabd.fy ofthe sanction and the objections to the same would remain open to the accused to be raised at the time offinal
Through: Mr. Sushil Kjt. Dubey, Advocate for Ms. Sonia Mathur, Standing Counsel for CBI
Crl.M.C.Nos.ll68,1392 & 1587 of 2012 Page 1 2013:DHC:6755 i
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR order
0/„ 10.10.2013
In the above-titled three petitions order of 9' February, 2012 in^pugttediscommor,one,therefore,withtheeonsentoflearnedcounselfor the parties, above-captioned petitioners were heard together and are emg disposed ofby this common order. _
Impugned order of9" February, 2012 rejects petitioners' application for droppingofproceedings for wantofproper sanctionto prosecutethem.
Operativeportionofthe impugnedorderreads as under:-
"In view ofthe above said legalpositionpropounded by the Hon-ble Supreme Court in Bharat Pankh v. CBI and
Anr (supra) andalsofollowed in K.Selvam Case (supra) the question ofeompetence ofsanction order cannot be assessed midway. The question as to the vabd.fy ofthe sanction and the objections to the same would remain open to the accused to be raised at the time offinal
JUDGMENT
The application at this stage ts pre-matwe andprayer made therein is thus rejected Order is mad accordingly."
At the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioner had drawn the attention ofthis Courtto paragraphsNo. 15 &17 ofApex Court's decision in State ofKarnataka through CBI v. CNagarajaswamy JT 2005 (12) S
349 to contend that the question as to whether aproper sanction has been accorded for prosecution of the accused persons or not is amatter should be dealtwith atthe stage oftaking cognizance.
Crl.M.C.Nos.ll68,1392 &1587 of2012 Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, material on record and the decisions cited, I find that petitioners had filed the application for dropping of proceedings for want of proper sanction when deposition of 23 witnesses had been already recorded and by now deposition of 31 witnesses out of 39 witnesses has been recorded. The legal position as enunciated by
Apex Court in C.Nagarajaswamy (supra) needs no reiteration but at the fag end of trial this court is not inclined to consider the plea of invalidity of sanction granted for prosecution ofpetitioners. Instead thereof, it is deemed appropriate to direct trial court to make all endeavours to conclude recording of prosecution evidence within this calendar year and petitioners shall be at liberty to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of final arguments.
Finding no palpable error in the impugned order, above-captioned three petitions and applications are disposed of with afore-noted directions and liberty.
Trial court be apprised ofthis order forthwith. ilL GAUR)^
Judge OCTOBER 10,2013 vn Crl.M.C.Nos.ll68,1392 & 1587 of 2012 Page 3
At the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioner had drawn the attention ofthis Courtto paragraphsNo. 15 &17 ofApex Court's decision in State ofKarnataka through CBI v. CNagarajaswamy JT 2005 (12) S
349 to contend that the question as to whether aproper sanction has been accorded for prosecution of the accused persons or not is amatter should be dealtwith atthe stage oftaking cognizance.
Crl.M.C.Nos.ll68,1392 &1587 of2012 Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, material on record and the decisions cited, I find that petitioners had filed the application for dropping of proceedings for want of proper sanction when deposition of 23 witnesses had been already recorded and by now deposition of 31 witnesses out of 39 witnesses has been recorded. The legal position as enunciated by
Apex Court in C.Nagarajaswamy (supra) needs no reiteration but at the fag end of trial this court is not inclined to consider the plea of invalidity of sanction granted for prosecution ofpetitioners. Instead thereof, it is deemed appropriate to direct trial court to make all endeavours to conclude recording of prosecution evidence within this calendar year and petitioners shall be at liberty to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of final arguments.
Finding no palpable error in the impugned order, above-captioned three petitions and applications are disposed of with afore-noted directions and liberty.
Trial court be apprised ofthis order forthwith. ilL GAUR)^
Judge OCTOBER 10,2013 vn Crl.M.C.Nos.ll68,1392 & 1587 of 2012 Page 3