Tilak Raj Mehandiratta vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 2977 Del

$~17

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                    CRL.REV.P. 320/2010


       TILAK RAJ MEHANDIRATTA              ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Dr. Kanwal Sapra, Advocate.


                     versus


       STATE                                          ..... Respondent
                              Through:    Mr. Salim Ahmed, ASC.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA


               ORDER

% 04.06.2010

1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 19/03/2010

dismissing the application that the petitioner had filed for ascertaining whether Mr.

Madhukar Gupta, Vice -Chairman in DDA had given sanction for prosecution and

why the said sanction was not placed on record and why Mr. Madhukar Gupta's

name was mentioned in the list of witnesses supplied to the accused. It was

alleged in the application that the prosecution changed the sanction order and

changed the witnesses and this had caused miscarriage of justice.

2. The present petition itself is not maintainable as the order passed by the

learned trial court dated 19/03/2010 is an interlocutory order. Further, on merits

CRL.REV.P.320/2010 Page 1 also there is no justification and reason to interfere with the impugned order.

3. The charge sheet was filed in the court on 23/11/2005 along with the

sanction order passed by Mr. Dinesh Rai, the then Vice-Chairman, DDA which

was received alongwith covering letter dated 26/10/2005. Copy of the charge sheet

was supplied to the accused on 05/12/2005 including copy of the sanction order

passed by Mr. Dinesh Rai. On 20.02.2007, Mr. Dinesh Rai, PW-1 was cross-

examined by Mr. H.R. Taneja, advocate for the accused. No objection was raised

at the time of cross examination of Mr. Dinesh Rai, the sanctioning authority that

the copy of the sanction order was not served on the accused.

4. Prosecution evidence and the defence evidence has been completed and the

case is now listed for final arguments before the Special Judge. The petitioner had

moved the aforesaid application on 12/10/2009 enclosing therewith copy of

sanction dated 25/12/2004 issued by Mr. Madhukar Gupta, the then Vice-

Chairman, DDA. It has been explained in the impugned order that charge sheet

was prepared on 11/2/2005 by Inspector Bhim Singh and put up before

prosecution branch along with the sanction order issued by Mr. Madhukar Gupta,

Vice Chairman, DDA. The prosecution branch, however, expressed doubt about

the sanction as the appointing authority was the Commissioner(P), DDA whereas

the sanction was accorded by Vice-Chairman, DDA. Hence, the file was again

sent back for re-examination. Thereafter, sanction was obtained from Mr. Dinesh

Rai, Vice-Chairman, DDA on 26/10/2005 and the charge sheet was filed before

the court on 23/11/2005.

In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present petition and

CRL.REV.P.320/2010 Page 2 the same is dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

      JUNE 04, 2010
      'ss'/VKR




CRL.REV.P.320/2010                   Page 3