Arun Ranade vs Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

A.P. Bhangale, J.—By this revision application, applicant is challenging legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 19th July 2007 passed by the Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No. 6 of 1996 (26/2003) allowing the application of prosecution to summon Smt Lize Jacob as Sanctioning Authority to prosecute the accused.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that name of Smt Jacob did not figure in the list of witnesses filed by the prosecution. It is further contended that sanctioning authority in relation to the applicant was one Shri G.D. Sharma who is no more living and Smt Jacob cannot be substituted in the place of Shri Sharma. According to learned Counsel, reason assigned in the application that Smt Jacob is senior to Shri Sharma, is not a good ground to allow the prosecution to examine her at the trial. Learned Counsel for the applicant points out that the accused was not called upon to admit or deny genuineness of any documents including sanction order relied for the prosecution of the accused.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order. He submits that the application was rightly allowed in the interest of justice.

I have perused the application and grounds set out in the memo of revision. Order impugned is really a cryptic and it reads thus:

Application is allowed and issue summons to P .W. as prayed.

It is surprising that the learned Special Judge did not think it proper to assign any reasons as to why he was allowing the application to summon an officer who was not cited as a witness in the list of witnesses filed along with chargesheet by the prosecution. When the accused is facing serious accusations, it is always just and proper exercise, care and caution to insist upon compliance of procedure prescribed according to law. In the present case, accused was never called upon at pretrial stage to either admit or deny genuineness of any documents filed by the prosecution. At any rate, impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

In the result, revision application is allowed. Order dated 19.7.2007 impugned in the revision application is quashed and set aside. However, liberty to the prosecution to apply afresh citing provisions of law and assigning adequate reasons to summon the said officer. If such an application is made, learned Special Judge shall decide the same adhering to the principles of law and natural justice and affording full opportunity of hearing to the applicant/accused. Revision Application stands disposed of accordingly. Let R & P go back immediately. Parties to appear before the Special Judge on 3.5.2011 at 11.00 am.