Delhi High Court
Col. Kuldeep Singh Malik (Retd.) vs The Central Bureau Of ... on 2 November, 2007
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this common order, I shall dispose of above two revisions filed against the order of Special Judge, CBI dated 17.7.2002 whereby he observed that there was grave suspicion arising out of the material placed before the Court about the involvement of the petitioner along with other accused persons for a criminal conspiracy for cheating the bank of its funds with active involvement and participation of accused persons.
2. A firm M/s Pankaj Finance and Leasing Limited had obtained loan from the Punjab National Bank on the basis of forged and bogus documents, bogus bills, corresponding bogus receipts for fabrication of bus body and bogus insurance covers. The Special Judge considered the entire facts in its detailed order running into 5 pages (20 paragraphs) and considered the role of each and every accused. After considering the role of each and every accused, the trial Court came to conclusion that a charge was made out for offences under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act against accused A-1, A-2 and A-3, and charge was made out under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 against accused A-1 and under Section 468 IPC against accused A-8. Rest of the accused persons out of 11, were discharged. Col. Kuldeep Singh Malik is accused No.6 and Vijay Kumar Bajaj is accused No.8 who had preferred this revision petition.
3. It is argued by the revision petitioners that the statement of witnesses recorded by the CBI was totally incorrect and the evidence collected did not show the involvement of the accused persons and they have been wrongly charged by the trial Court. It is settled law that the power of revision is not to be exercised by the High Court very lightly and it has to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where justice delivery system requires interference for correction of a manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice. An order can be set aside in revision only if it suffers from grave infirmity to the extent that if it is not set aside, it will result into complete perversity or failure of justice. It is not open to revision court to interfere into the order simply because another view may be probable.
4. A perusal of the order passed by the Special Judge and the facts would show that a grave suspicion did arise, and certainly could be inferred from the evidence showing involvement of the accused in the conspiracy and resultant obtaining of loan on the basis of forged documents. At the time of considering revision, this Court cannot analyze the evidence of prosecution in detail and come to a conclusion whether view taken by the trial Court was a correct view or not. Suffice it to say that the order of the trial Court regarding framing charge was based on the evidence collected by CBI and perused by the trial Court. The view taken by the trial Court is only prima facie view and the order of the charge cannot be set aside on the ground that the statement of the witnesses were false or incorrect.
5. I find no force in the revision petitions. The revision petitions are hereby dismissed.
6. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 13th November, 2007. The trial court record be sent forthwith.
