Delhi High Court
Tuncay Alankus vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 6 April, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
R-129&130
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: April 06, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 4991/2014 & Crl. M.A.No.17104/2014
TUNCAY ALANKUS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bahar C. Barqui &
Mr. Mahmood Alam, Advocates
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG, with
Mr.V.N.Ojha & Mr. Rajul Jain,
Advocates
+ CRL.M.C. 296/2015 & Crl. M.A.No.1146/2015
TUNCAY ALANKUS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bahar C. Barqui &
Mr. Mahmood Alam, Advocates
versus
CENTRAL BUREAUS OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG, with
Mr.V.N.Ojha & Mr. Rajul Jain,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In the above captioned two petitions, challenge is to the order of
28th November, 2014 and the summons issued in pursuance thereto. Vide
Crl.M.C.No.4991/2014 Page 1
Crl.M.C.No.296 /2015
impugned order witnesses have been directed to be summoned to appear
before the trial court while noting that neither any defence witness is
available for video conferencing nor defence counsel has made personal
efforts to produce any defence witness. Impugned order also notes that
on various dates, petitioner sought time to coordinate with defence
witnesses and steps have not been taken to get the summons issued to the
defence witnesses.
With the consent of learned counsel representing both the sides, the
above captioned two petitions were heard together and are being disposed
of by this common judgment.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had drawn the
attention of this Court to the willingness given by six witnesses i.e. Mr.
G.A.Batalin, Mr. Ivanov Sheri Petrovitch, Mr. Rafael Leoni, Mr. Dydk
Georgly Michailovich, Mr. Ahmad Murad Masimovitch and Mr.Karpenko
Alazander Efimovich.
It was pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that the
summons issued to these witnesses are liable to be quashed, as these
summons have been issued in utter violation of Coordinate Bench
decision of this Court on 4th June, 2010 in Criminal Revision Petition No.
126/2005 & Crl. M.C.No.1347/2008 (Annexure P-3). It is submitted that
in the aforesaid decision of 4th June, 2010 (Annexure P-3), directions
have been issued to trial court to get these witnesses examined through
video conferencing at the expense of petitioner and petitioner is ready to
deposit the expenses, provided it is made known by respondent-CBI as to
what expenses are to be deposited by the petitioner.
Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order as well as summons
Crl.M.C.No.4991/2014 Page 2
Crl.M.C.No.296 /2015
issued in pursuance thereto are to be quashed with direction to the trial
court to comply with the directions issued by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in the decision of 4th June, 2010 (Annexure P-3) in letter and spirit.
Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General for
respondent-CBI has drawn attention of this Court to trial court's order of
17th September, 2014 to point out that steps for getting three witnesses i.e.
Mr. G.A.Batalin, Mr. Dydk Georgiy Michailovich and Mr. Michail
Capuryan examined through video conferencing have been already taken
but the steps for remaining three witnesses i.e. Mr. Karpenko Alazander
Efimovich, Mr. Alexander Miailov & Mr. Ahmed Murad could not be
taken because their addresses were not found to be correct. Thus, it is
submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, as
the lapse is on the part of petitioner to ensure that video conferencing of
the defence witnesses takes place.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and the
material on record, I find that directions issued by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the decision of 4th June, 2010 (Annexure P-3) have to be
complied with in true letter and spirit. As per trial court's order of 17th
September, 2014, steps for recording of evidence of defence witnesses
through video conferencing have been taken in respect of at least three
witnesses i.e. Mr. G.A.Batalin, Mr. Dydk Georgiy Michailovich and Mr.
Michail Capuryan. So far as remaining three witnesses i.e. Mr. Karpenko
Alazander Efimovich, Mr. Alexander Miailov & Mr. Ahmed Murad are
concerned, learned counsel for petitioner submits that within a period of
four weeks, steps to find out correct address of these witnesses would be
taken and if it is not possible to do so, then these witnesses would be
Crl.M.C.No.4991/2014 Page 3
Crl.M.C.No.296 /2015
dropped. Regarding defence witness- Mr. Bartrand Grillon, Manager of
Nimaco, learned counsel for petitioner submits that steps would be taken
to get him summoned through the local court at the place where he is
stationed.
In the face of trial court's order of 17th September, 2014 and the
willingness obtained by petitioner from the defence witnesses, I find that
impugned order of 28th November, 2014 cannot be sustained and is
accordingly quashed. Consequently, summons issued in pursuance to the
impugned order also stand quashed. A direction is issued to the trial
court to take effective steps for service of defence witnesses after
obtaining a report from respondent-CBI about expenses which are
required to be deposited by petitioner for video conferencing. It is made
clear that if petitioner is not able to provide the correct address of any of
the defence witnesses, then this judgment will not stand in the way of trial
court to refuse summons to said witnesses.
With aforesaid directions, above captioned petitions and
applications are disposed of. Trial court be apprised of this order
forthwith.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 06, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No.4991/2014 Page 4
Crl.M.C.No.296 /2015
