Narayan Diwakar vs Uoi & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3997 Del

              * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          Date of Order: 30th August, 2010

+ WP (Crl.) No. 1038 of 2008
%                                                           30.08.2010

NARAYAN DIWAKAR                                                  ..... Petitioner
                               Through: Mr. N. Joshi & Mr. Sanjay Diwakar,
                                      Advocates.

                               versus

U.O.I & ANR.                                                  ..... Respondents
                               Through: Mr. Sachin Datta & Mr. Manikya
                               Khanna, Advocates for UOI.
                               Mr. Harish Gulati & Mr. Anindya Malhotra,
                               Advocates for CBI.

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

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

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?



(ORAL)

Crl. M.A. No.8721/2010 (for restoration)

       This is an application for restoration of petition which was

dismissed for non-prosecution on 7th July, 2010.

       For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and

the petition is restored to its original number.

       The application stands disposed of.




WP (Crl.) No. 1038 of 2008                                                 Page 1 of 3
 WP (Crl.) No. 1038 of 2008


1.     Present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions

to Union of India by validly notifying/appointing independent and

impartial prosecutors free from the control, supervision and subordination

of the CBI. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the present

system being followed by CBI of rewarding the prosecutors for a

successful conviction in a case, affected the impartiality of the prosecutors

and therefore violated right of a fair trial of the petitioner thereby violating

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.


2.     System of rewarding efficient officials is prevalent in all institutions

and departments.        It is considered as a progressive step by all

organizations to reward their efficient and hardworking employees vis-à-

vis those who shirk work. This system is prevalent in one form or the

other in all departments. System of rewards and incentives for better

performance cannot be considered as a system which affects the

impartiality or fairness of employees. This system is only to encourage an

employee to give his best to the department.            Moreover the Public

Prosecutors under CBI, perhaps, work more independently than an

Advocate for the accused, although, both are considered officers of the

Court. There is no personal interest of Public Prosecutor involved and the

success or failure in the case does not affect his salary or the further


WP (Crl.) No. 1038 of 2008                                          Page 2 of 3
 remuneration whereas success or failure in the case of a defence counsel

does affect his future engagements. Merely because CBI rules provide for

some reward to successful Public Prosecutors does not amount to Public

Prosecutor becomes unfair to the accused.


3.     This petition seems to be an effort of the petitioner to delay the

proceedings. The petition is hereby dismissed.




August 30, 2010                       SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

acm