- (1.) MRS. 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.
(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 registered as case crime No. 77 of 1991, under Sections 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 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A I. P. C. read with Sections 13 (2), 3 (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 petitioner alongwith other co- accused on 21-10-1993 under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471, 477-A 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 17-2-2006, 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 25-8-2000. Sri Vinay Saran has challenged the entire proceedings as well as the order rejecting the application on behalf of the petitioner under Section 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 v. State of Kerala, 2001 (2) JIC 818 (SC) : (2001) 6 SCC 181. 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 which 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, 1994 JIC 644 (SC) : II (1994) CCR 531 (SC) and Rakesh Kumar v. State of Delhi, 1 (2004) CCR 343. Several objections regarding procedure of investigation and inquiry are raised on behalf of the petitioner and on his basis, the impugned orders are sought to be quashed.
(3.) 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 Rajveer 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 far-fetched. 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 v. Ved Prakash and Ors. , 2005 (1) JIC 109 (SC) : 2004 Crl. L. J. 4219. 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 v. State (Delhi Administration), 1979 (2) SCC 322, where it was held : "even in regard to 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 ".;