A.K.Gupta vs State Thru Cbi
2010 Latest Caselaw 3806 Del

                             * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                        Date of Reserve: July 26, 2010
                                                      Date of Order: 16th August, 2010
+ CRL.M.C. 1436/2009
%                                                                     16.08.2010

A.K.GUPTA                                                                  ..... Petitioner
      Through: Mr. Ajay Burman, Advocate

                                 Versus

STATE THR. C.B.I.                                                    ..... Respondent
      Through: Mr. Harish Gulati, Advocate for CBI


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?        Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?                                       Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?                               Yes.

JUDGMENT

1. In this country a folklore goes that if you are caught taking bribe you

can get scot free by giving bribe. In this case, CBI intended to prove the same.

2. The petitioner in this case was caught accepting bribe from a

complainant who had official business pending with the petitioner, working as

Engineer in the department where a trap was laid on the basis of a complaint

lodged on 17th November, 1990. The petitioner was caught red handed on

19th November, 1990 at Room No. 22, First Floor of Hotel Maharaja, in the

evening in the presence of shadow witness. The investigation was referred to

CBI, CBI did not file result of investigation for 11 long years in a trap case

where the investigation would not have taken more than few days.

Ultimately, the CBI filed a closure report after 11 long years. The CBI had no

explanation as to why the result of investigation was not filed for all these

years. In view of this state of affairs, the only thing that comes to mind is the

folklore as quoted above.

3. The closure report filed by the CBI was not accepted by the Special

Judge of CBI as the Special Judge found that the reasons given in the closure

report were flimsy, not convincing and vague. It was found that CBI had not

investigated the case properly and had unnecessarily doubted the credibility

of the complainant. The learned Special Judge passed a detailed order as to

why the closure report was not being accepted and gave directions for further

investigation. He also directed that an investigation should also be done into

the aspect of delay of 11 years in filing the closure report. After passing of this

order by the Court of Special Judge on 4th May, 2002, it took CBI

approximately another 7 years to file charge-sheet and the charge-sheet was

filed against the petitioner on 18th February, 2009. The Special Judge then

took the cognizance of the offences vide order dated 28th February, 2009.

4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of

charge-sheet on the ground of delay. It is alleged by the petitioner that

investigation in this FIR had remained pending for so many years. The

petitioner took voluntary retirement on 31st January, 2004 i.e. about 21

months prior to his actual date of retirement. The petitioner submitted that

since the charge-sheet was filed with such an extra-ordinary delay and the

delay had not been explained, the charge-sheet should be quashed. It is

submitted that speedy investigation and speedy trial was right of the

petitioner and delay in filing the charge-sheet would hamper the defence of

the petitioner as all the witnesses whom petitioner could have examined in his

defence had retired with passage of time and it would be impossible for the

petitioner to locate and trace them or to find them.

5. There is an apparent connivance between the petitioner and the

officials of CBI. In a trap case, where a person is caught red handed, the

investigation to be done by CBI involves only recording of statements of

witnesses involved in the trap, statement of complainant, seizure of the bribe

money and sending of hand wash of the accused to FSL and obtaining report.

This entire process does not take more than 2 months. There is no

explanation given by CBI as to why this case was kept pending investigation

for 11 years at first instance and for 7 years at second instance. It only seems

that the CBI was not at all interested that the corrupt officials sitting in public

offices should be brought to book. The petitioner was an Executive Engineer in

DESU at that time and had allegedly demanded bribe. He was caught red

handed while accepting bribe. Even if CBI had to file a closure report doubting

the credibility of the complainant and other witnesses, CBI should have filed

the same within a reasonable time but, perhaps, CBI wanted that the case

should die a slow un-natural death that is why for 11 years CBI kept sitting on

this investigation and then filed a closure report giving lame excuses. When it

was asked to further investigate, for another 7 years it kept sitting on

investigation and then filed a charge-sheet. The only logical conclusion is that

CBI was not honest and sincere in investigation of this case. Had the CBI been

honest in investigation of the case, it would not have delayed filing of the

charge-sheet or the initial closure report. There is unexplained long interval of

7 years between the order rejecting closure report and charge-sheet at

second instance.

6. No doubt, speedy investigation and speedier trial is the right of accused

but speedy and fair investigation is also a right of the society being victim of

the crime. The people of this country have a vested right to ensure that

officers working in public offices should be honest and persons with integrity

and those who indulge in corruption should be brought to book. If the

investigating agency mixes up with the accused persons and investigation

reports are not filed for such a long time as in this case, then every accused

person would get investigation delayed and say that he should be let of

because investigation has taken such a long time.

7. It would be a matter of investigation as to who was responsible for

such an inordinate delay in this case. I consider that instead of accused being

let of, it could be appropriate that those officials of CBI, who were responsible

for dereliction of duty, should be brought to book and action should be taken

against them.

8. I find no force in the petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.

However, Trial Court shall expedite the trial in this case.

9. Director, CBI is directed to investigate as to who were responsible for

keeping the investigation of this pending. A report shall be filed before this

Court, about this, within three months. The CBI director shall also intimate as

to what action was being taken against those officials who were responsible

for this inordinate delay.

10. The petition is being kept alive to ensure action against the erring

officials. List the matter on 18th November, 2010.

August 16, 2010                                  SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm