DALVEER BHANDARI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated (reported in 2003 Cri LJ 430I)14th July, 2003 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Misc. (M) No. 522 of 2003.
(2.) THE appellant, a judicial officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, is aggrieved by the remarks and strictures which have been passed by the High Court of Delhi against him. According to the appellant, the remarks were totally undeserved, unjustified, unmerited and unnecessary for deciding the issue involved in the case. In this appeal, he has prayed for expunging and deleting the remarks passed by the High Court. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under: The appellant, at the relevant point of time, was posted as a Special Judge dealing with the case of Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, 'CBI') at New Delhi. The appellant all through has been an outstanding officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service and consistently getting outstanding (A+) ACRs in his entire service career. Respondent No. 3 Chander Prakash, a non-resident Indian (NRI) along with others were charge-sheeted by the CBI under Section 120-B read with Sections 420/ 467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Respondent No. 3 Chander Prakash was granted bail on 1-3-2002 subject to the condition that he will not leave the country without permission of the Court. On 4-3-2002, respondent No. 3 filed an application seeking permission to go to Hong Kong. The said application was opposed by the CBI in writing on the ground that respondent No. 3 might flee from justice and he may not be available for facing the trial. During the pendency of the said application, to assure the Court and the CBI that respondent No.3 Chander Prakash would be available for the trial, respondent No. 3 expressed willingness to deposit the passports of his wife and mother, who are respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in this appeal, before the CBI Court. Respondent No. 3 Chander Prakash presumably with the consent and concurrence of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 volunteered to deposit the passports of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Pursuant to the offer made by respondent No. 3, vide order dated 4-3-2002, respondent No.3 was granted permission to go to Hong Kong after depositing the passports of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. They were not aggrieved by the order at any point of time because the order was in the nature of a consent order rather than strict directions of the Court. The order passed by the appellant dated 4-3-2002 reads thus : ORDER "Case taken up today on the application of Chander Prakash for permission to go Hong Kong and for return of his passport. He states that he is an NRI and is working in Hong Kong. Keeping in view the fact that he had appeared in response to the summons issued by this Court and he has expressed his willingness to deposit the passports of his wife and his mother in the Court in order to ensure that he shall not abscond during trial, he is permitted to go to Hong Kong subject to the condition that he shall remain present on the next date of hearing and shall file an FDR of Rs. one lac today itself. On filing of FDR and passports of the mother and wife of the accused Chander Prakash, his passport be released to him. Accused Chander Prakash has already given his office address of the Hong Kong in the application. He is also directed to give his residential address in Hong Kong to the Court. He shall deposit the passport in Court on return from Hong Kong. Special Court/New Delhi"
(3.) AN application dated 10-8-2002 was filed after more than five months of the order dated 4-3-2002 in which respondent Nos. 4 and 5 prayed that their passports be returned on the ground that respondent No.5 wanted to get her treatment done by respondent No. 3 who at that time was in Hong Kong. The CBI opposed the application in writing. Vide orders dated 14-8-2002, the application was rejected by the appellant. It was noted in the order that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had willingly deposited their passports and, therefore, it would not be appropriate to release their passports till respondent No, 3(accusd Chandra Prakash) returns from abroad and seeks fresh permission to go abroad without depositing the passports of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The order dated 4-3-2002 passed by the appellant was challenged by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by filing Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 4200/02 in Criminal Misc. (M) No. 1043/02 before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court vide order dated 9-10- 2002 directed release of passport only of respondent No.4 for a period of two months as respondent No.3 was admitted in the hospital. She was directed to return and surrender her passport thereafter. The said order is reproduced hereunder: JUDGEMENT_6240_AIR(SCW)_2009Html1.htm ;