Pradeep Goel vs State of U.P., S.O./S.H.O. and S.P.E. Central Bureau of Investigation

Poonam Srivastav, J.—Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.S. Hajela Advocate for the respondent No. 3 and learned A.G.A. for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

The prayer in the instant writ petition is for quashing the order dated 25.8.2006 passed by the Special Judge (C.B.I.) Prevention of Corruption Act U.P. (Purva), Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 142 of 2006 and order dated 17.2.2006 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad in case No. 4 of 2004.

According to the petitioner, a first information report was lodged by one Virendra Kumar Gupta, Manager, State Bank of India, Sikandrabad, Bulandshahar against one Rajvir Singh and Naresh Chandra Gupta which was refistered as case crime No. 77 of 1991, u/s 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. The local police investigated the matter and submitted a final report. Subsequently another first information report at the instance of the C.B.I, was registered as case Crime No. R.C.-27(A)/91-DAD, under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A I.P.C. read with Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at S.P.E. C.B.I. Dehradun. The name of the present petitioner was included as an accused by the C.B.I. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petition along with other co-accused on 21.10.1993 under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471, 477A I.P.C. The Special Judicial Magistrate C.B.I., Dehradun took cognizance on 26.10.1993. However since a new State of Uttaranchal came in existence, the proceedings of the case stood transferred to the C.B.I. Court in U.P. An application was moved at the instance of the petitioner for his discharge which was rejected vide order dated 17.2.2000. the order was challenged in a criminal revision No. 142 of 2006. The Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (C.B.I.) dismissed the revision on 25.8.2006.

Sri Vinay Saran has challenged the entire proceedings as well as the order rejecting the application on behalf of the petitioner u/s 227 Cr. P.C. The submission is that the petitioner was working as Regional Secretary of the State Bank of India, Staff Association, Delhi during the period for the years 1989 to 1992 and the petitioner is implicated as a consequence of a hatched conspiracy, also his prosecution is politically motivated. The Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad rejected discharge application on behalf of the petitioner in a cursory manner without applying his mind. Besides, a number of other grounds has been raised in paragraph 17 of the writ petition. The first objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the instant prosecution is on the basis of second first information report at the instance of C.B.I., whereas in respect of the same offence, a previous first information report was already in existence as case crime No. 77 of 1991 and after completing the investigation, the local police submitted a final report. Reliance has been placed on the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Others, The first information report registered at the instance of the C.B.I., is clearly hit by provisions of Section 162 Cr. P.C. and consequent proceeding amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. It is also submitted that the name of one Naresh Chandra Gupta, clerk of the State Bank of India, Sikandrabad was arrayed in both the first information reports but for reasons best known, his name was dropped and now his name figures as a witness. The next objection is regarding report of the handwriting expert winch is not admissible in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Sukhvinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab 11 (1994) C.C.R. 53l.(S.C) and Rakesh Kumar v. State of Delhi 1 (2004) C.C.R. 531 (S.C.) Several objections regarding procedure of investigation and inquiry are raised on behalf of the petitioner and on its basis, the impugned orders are sought to be quashed.

Sri Hajela has emphatically disputed the arguments of Sri Vinay Saran. It is submitted that the present petitioner was not an accused in the case in which the local police submitted a final report and also disputed that the first information report registered with C.B.I., is not a second first information report of the same incident. In fact the investigation was transferred to the C.B.I., who after conducting preliminary inquiry of the allegations, came to a conclusion that in addition to Raj veer Singh and Naresh Chandra Gupta, the petitioner was also involved. Final report was not accepted by the court and it is absolutely wrong to say that the first information report, which is basis of the charge sheet submitted by the C.B.I., is a second report of the same offence. In fact when the investigation was transferred, a different crime number was given by the C.B.I, by Delhi Police Establishment, Dehradun Branch and contention of the learned Counsel is not correct and farfetched. The argument on the basis of the principles laid down in the case of T.T. Antony (Supra) has also been disputed by Sri Hajela.

Reliance has been placed on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash and Others, The Hon''ble Supreme Court has categorically come to a conclusion that where there are rival versions or two versions in respect of the same episode then they would naturally, take the shape of two different reports, the investigation can very well be carried on. Similar view was expressed on a previous occasion in the case of Ram Lal Narang Vs. State (Delhi Administration), where it was held:

Even in regard 10 a complaint arising out of a complaint on further investigation if it was found that there was a large conspiracy than the one referred to in the previous complaint then a further investigation under the court culminating in another complaint is permissible.

The Apex Court in the case of Upkar Singh (supra) in paragraph 22 held as under:

Be that as it may, if the law laid down by this Court in T.T. Antony''s case is to be accepted as holding a second complaint in regard to the same incident filed as a counter complaint is prohibited under the Code then, in our opinion, sue a conclusion would lead to serious consequences. This will be clear from the hypothetical example given herein below i.e. if in regard to a crime committed by the real accused he lakes the first opportunity to lodge a false complaint and the same is registered by the jurisdictional police then the aggrieved victim of such crime will be precluded from lodging a complaint giving his version of the incident in question consequently he will be deprived of his legitimated right to bring the real accused 10 books. This cannot be the purport of the Code.

In the circumstances, in view of the submission and principles laid down by the Apex Court, I am not in agreement with the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. So far the objection regarding the second first information report by the C.B.I, is concerned, no illegality has been committed and the proceedings against the petitioner are very much maintainable.

The second objection regarding the evidence of handwriting expert is concerned, which has been adduced in evidence without taking permission is also not acceptable for the reason that the report of the handwriting was obtained during preliminary inquiry by the C.B.I. In the event, the petitioner desires to rebut the said report, it is always open for him to do so during the trial but his rebuttal can not be considered at the stage of Section 227 Cr. P.C In fact the case of State of Orissa v. Devendra Nuth Padhi overruled the decision of Satish Mehra v. State of Delhi Administration 1996(9) S.C.C. 706 and does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. On the contrary on the basis of principles laid down in the said decision, the rebuttal could not be given at this stage.

In view of what has been stated above, no good ground for interference is made out. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.