Rajendra Saxena, J. - (1.) The petitioner has filed this amended application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and prayed that an inquiry be initiated against the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, superintendent of Police CBI- SPE, Jaipur and Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, the then SP, CBI (SPE), Jaipur non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in respect of offence committed by them referred to in S. 195(1), Cr.P.C. during proceedings in S.B. ; Civil Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1717/1983 and D.B. Special (Writ) Appeal No. 314/1983, Union of India v. Arjun Singh .
(2.) The skeletal facts necessary for disposal of this application are that, the petitioner is facing trial at Jaipur, Agra etc. for allegedly defrauding various banks. In Special Case No. 6/1981, State v. Sunil Singh and others , he has been convicted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (for CBI SPE cases), Jaipur, for offences under Sections 468 & 471, IPC. Special Cases Nos. 1 & 2 of 1983 State v. Bhimsen and others , wherein the petitioner is also a co-accused, are pending before the learned Special Judge (CBI cases), Jaipur. These cases are fixed for final arguments for last 4-5 years. The petitioner, who was in the year 1983 lodged in jail filed SB Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1717/83 in this Court challenging his detention on the ground that the Public Prosecutor and the Assistant Public Prosecutors of the CBI, who were prosecuting him in the afore-mentioned cases are directly working under the administrative control of the Superintendent of Police CBI (SPE), that they also took part in the investigation in these cases and as such, their appointments were against the provisions contained in Sections 24 & 25 of the Cr.P.C., and, therefore, prosecution against him in those cases stood vitiated and his detention was illegal. The learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice DL Mehta) by his order dated 28.7.83 observed that it was not denied in the reply filed on behalf of the CBI (SPE) that the PPs/APPs are subordindate to the SP CBI (SPE). He, therefore, directed that the PPs/APPs subordinate to the SP CBI (SPE) shall not he allowed to act as PP/APP. Aggrieved by the said order dated 28.7.83 of the learned SB, the Union of India (Non- petitioner No. 1) filed DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 314/1983, which came to be decided by a learned DB of this Court comprising of Hon'hle Mr. Justice SC Agrawal & Hon'ble Mr. Justice SN Bhargava (as they then were) vide judgment dated 16.2.1984. The learned DB after considering the provisions of Sections 24 & 25 of the Cr.P.C. to relevant case law as also the organisational structure of the CBI in the context of appointment and working PPs/APPs allowed special appeal and set aside the order dated 28.7.83 of the SB and consequently dismissed the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition filed by Arjun Singh. It appears that the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition against the judgment dated 16.2.84 of the DB but the Apex Court dismissed the same. Thus, the DB judgment dated 16.2.84 attained finality.
(3.) Thereafter the petitioner initially filed these petitions for initiation of contempt proceedings against the non-petitioners and Sarva Shri S.P. Tyagi, the then Advocate for the CBI, D.K. Jain the then Sr. PP for CBI, and Altaf Hussain Sr. PP for CBI. However, on 19.8.96 the petitioner withdrew his prayer for initiating contempt of Court proceedings and asserted that his petition is for seeking relief under Section 340, Cr.P.C. only. He also wanted to suitably amend his petition. He has now filed this amended petition for initiating inquiry under Section 340, Cr.P.C.;