Deepak Anand vs Union Of India & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 9383 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   Date of decision: 17th December, 2015

+                               W.P.(C) No.3903/2011

       DEEPAK ANAND                                ..... Petitioner
                   Through:  Petitioner-in-person.
                          Versus
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                       ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC with Mr. Deepak Gupta, Adv. for R-

1/UOI.

Ms. Sonia Mathur with Mr. Sushil Kumar Dubey, Advs. for CBI.

IO Mohit Kumar.

CORAM:-

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. The petitioner, an Advocate, has filed this petition as a Public Interest

Litigation (PIL) seeking a direction to the Ministry of Home Affairs,

Government of India to constitute an independent Special Investigating Team

(SIT) or the Special Task Force (STF) for fair, unbiased, impartial and proper

investigation of case FIR No.878/2000 of Police Station Kalkaji, New Delhi

and to "expose the fake stamps scams and book all the persons involved in the

crime".

2. The petition was entertained and the respondent no.2 Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI) directed to file and has filed an affidavit and to which a

rejoinder was filed by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner, in the petition has sought to justify the relief by pleading

i) that though the accused in the FIR had disclosed getting supply of fake

stamps from one Hemant Dubey of Mumbai but after the investigation of the

case was taken over by the CBI, the CBI surprisingly not only gave a clean chit

to the said Hemant Dubey but also cited him as a prosecution witness in the

charge sheet; ii) that from what has emerged in the investigation, it is evident

that apart from the "Telgi Scam", there was another fake stamp scam which was

run parallel to Telgi Scam; iii) that though the fake stamp scam of Abdul Karim

Telgi had come to an end with the recovery of his printing press in June, 2002,

the parallel scam of Hemant Dubey and others is yet to be unearthed.

4. The respondent no.2 CBI in its counter affidavit has pleaded that:

i) The petition is based on baseless presumptions.

ii) The contention in the petition that the fake stamps recovered were

printed by Hemant Dubey is devoid of any merits.

iii) Earlier also several writ petitions were filed by accused persons in

fake stamp cases registered with CBI raising similar issues as in

the present PIL and all the writ petitions were dismissed.

iv) Since the accused persons failed to scuttle the progress of the trial

of the said cases, they have now got the present writ petition filed.

v) The role of Hemant Dubey was probed but except the allegation of

accused Narender Singh nothing substantial came on record which

could have formed the basis for prosecuting Hemant Dubey in the

said cases.

vi) The cases relating to Telgi Fake Stamps Scam were assigned to

CBI by the Supreme Court.

vii) The petitioner has a vested interest in filing this PIL; he wants to

delay the course of trial of the said cases;

viii) The charge sheets filed by the CBI in fake stamps cases are

supported with quality oral and documentary evidence and this fact

has been approved by several judgments by different Courts in

such cases wherein number of accused persons have already been

convicted.

ix) Therefore it is wrong to say that the investigation by CBI is

questionable.

x) The claim as made in this petition "of two fake stamps scams" has

been made by some of the accused persons involved in RC-2/2003,

EOU-VI and RC-3/2004, EOU-V to cover up their own role in the

crime and to divert the course of investigation.

xi) The claim regarding another fake scam syndicate led by Hemant

Dubey was investigated by the CBI and the outcome of the

investigation has been discussed in the charge sheets filed in the

Court.

xii) Specific role of Hemant Dubey was examined during investigation

but nothing substantial emerged on record except the statement of

accused persons who themselves were part of the same offence.

xiii) If the petitioner had reliable material evidence in support of his

claim as is produced along with this PIL, then it is inexplicable as

to why he kept silent for a long time and has filed this petition at a

crucial stage.

xiv) Though the accused named Hemant Dubey but during

investigation could not corroborate the same.

xv) The name of Hemant Dubey figures in the body of charge sheets

because his involvement was suspected at initial stage; however

further investigation in the case did not establish his role or

involvement in the said cases.

xvi) After emergence of Telgi Fake Stamp Scam, an SIT under the

supervision of Joint Director, CBI was formed by CBI and around

48 cases of fake stamps scam spread over different parts of the

country were thoroughly investigated by the SIT during 2004-05

and the investigation was regularly monitored by the Supreme

Court.

xvii) The CBI has carried out the investigation in accordance with law

and with complete transparency.

xviii) That the PIL has been filed at the behest of accused persons.

xix) Filing of the present PIL is part of the strategy formed by the

accused persons.

Else, each and every contention in the petition is specifically met

with in the said affidavit.

5. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder controverting the contents of the

counter-affidavit of the CBI.

6. The petitioner has also placed on record the transcript of a television

interview of the former Director of the CBI to make out a case of interference

by politicians in the investigation by the CBI.

7. The counsel for the petitioner during hearing relied upon Bharati

Tamang Vs. Union of India 2013 (13) SCALE 108 to contend that evidence

obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out and

the test of admissibility of evidence lies in relevancy and unless there is an

express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law,

evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut

out and further remind this court of its duties as culled out in para 37 of the said

judgment.

8. It was also argued by the petitioner appearing in person that there is no

evidence till date of the origin of the supply of fake stamps and the CBI has

under dictates of the politicians closed the cases against the kingpin of the said

scam.

9. Per contra, the counsel for the CBI during the hearing referred us to the

order dated 15th March, 2004 of the Supreme court in W.P.(C) No.522/2003

titled Ajay K. Agrawal Vs. Union of India transferring 48 stamp scam cases to

the CBI for investigation and further directing that no High Court shall entertain

any petition or pass any order in regard to the said cases. It was further

informed that the said three cases were not part of the said 48 cases and are of a

subsequent date and a fall out of the earlier cases. A copy of the order dated

17th January, 2008 of this Court in Crl.M.C. No.4413/2006 titled Puran Singh

Vs. Union of India was also handed over to show that similar allegations as

made by the petitioner herein were made in that case also and were not

accepted. It was further contended that the Trial Court before which the

proceedings are pending is fully competent to summon Hemant Dubey if feel

the need therefor. Reliance was placed on Sushila Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan

(2014) 1 SCC 269 to contend that monitoring by the Court of the case can be

till the investigation stage only but when the investigating agency appointed by

the Court completes the investigation, files a charge sheet and takes steps in the

matter in accordance with the provisions of law before a competent Court of

law, it would not be proper for the High Court or the Supreme Court exercising

supervisory jurisdiction to keep on monitoring the trial which is continuing

before the competent Court.

10. The petitioner appearing in person in rejoinder handed over a copy of the

FIR No.298/2006 of Police Station Marine Line, Mumbai to show that Hemant

Dubey was an accused therein. The counsel for the CBI responded that this has

no relevance to the subject controversy.

11. The counsel for the CBI during the hearing also handed over a status

report disclosing the status of the trial.

12. Supreme Court as far back as in State of West Bengal Vs. Committee for

Protection of Democratic Rights West Bengal (2010) 3 SCC 571 held that

though the Courts in exercise of their power of judicial review are entitled to

direct investigation and that such direction would not amount to infringement of

the doctrine of separation of powers but such power should not be exercised just

for asking or to satisfy the ego or vindicate the prestige of a party interested in

such investigation and only if the Court finds such a direction necessary in the

facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly in Secretary, Minor Irrigation &

Rural Engineering Services, U.P. Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya (2002) 5 SCC 521 it

was held that no direction should be issued without the Court being prima facie

satisfied. Again in Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254 it was

reiterated that only in exceptional circumstances and in order to prevent

miscarriage of criminal justice would the Court interfere in investigation. Only

when there is a reasonable apprehension about justice becoming a victim

because of shabby or partisan investigation that the Court would step in and

exercise its extraordinary power. The said principles were recently reiterated in

Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2015) 9 SCC 795.

13. In the present case, not only has this Court on an earlier occasion not

found any merit in the allegations as now made in this PIL but we are otherwise

also satisfied that no case for interference at this stage is made out. We rather

find considerable merit in the pleas aforesaid taken by the respondent no.2 CBI

with respect to the locus of the petitioner and the motive of the petitioner in

filing this petition. However, the petitioner being an advocate of this Court, we

refrain from saying anything more and further refrain from imposing any costs.

Dismissed.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

CHIEF JUSTICE DECEMBER 17th, 2015 „gsr‟