Delhi High Court
Naresh Lal Chaudhary & Ors. vs The Central Bureau Of ... on 10 March, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: March 10, 2015
(i) + CRL.M.C. 467/2015 & Crl.M.A Nos.1864/2015 & 2656/2015
NARESH LAL CHAUDHARY & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, Mr. Vipul
Sharma and Ms. Meena Sharma,
Advocates
versus
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Standing
Counsel for CBI with Mr. Rajat
Soni, Advocate
Mr. Vijay Bisnoi, Advocate for
respondent No.2
Mr. Islam Khan, Advocate for
respondents No.3 to 6
(ii) + CRL.M.C. 468/2015 & Crl.M.A.Nos.1866/2015 & 2658/2015
MEENA CHAUDHARY SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: In person
versus
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Standing
Counsel for CBI with Mr. Rajat
Soni, Advocate
Mr. Vijay Bisnoi, Advocate for
respondent No.2
Mr. Islam Khan, Advocate for
respondents No.3 to 6
Crl.M.C.No.467/2015 Page 1
Crl.M.C.No.468/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In the above captioned two petitions, challenge is to the order of
23rd January, 2015 vide which trial court has refused to reserve the orders
on the protest petition and has adjourned the hearing on the protest
petition to 27th February, 2015.
With the consent of counsel representing both the sides, the above
captioned two petitions have been heard together and are being disposed
of by this common judgment.
The grievance of petitioners is that the Presiding Officer of the trial
court had heard the protest petition for last more than three years and
hearing on the protest petition was actually concluded on 7 th January,
2015 and the matter was adjourned to the next day for further hearing and
clarification and on the next day, counsel for accused wanted to make
some legal submissions and the matter was adjourned to 19th January,
2015 and on the said day also, the matter was got adjourned to 23 rd
January, 2015 and the Presiding Officer of the trial court had to relinquish
the charge as Special Judge, CBI, Rohini Courts, Delhi on 24th January,
2015 upon being transferred to the Electricity Court. It was submitted on
behalf of the petitioners that counsel for respondent-accused had
deliberately not appeared on 23rd January, 2015 and in such a situation,
the trial court ought to have reserved the orders on the protest petition,
instead of adjourning it on the request of proxy counsel for accused.
The precise prayer made on behalf of petitioners is that the protest
Crl.M.C.No.467/2015 Page 2
Crl.M.C.No.468/2015
petition be placed before the Presiding Officer, who has already heard the
matter for more than three years, so that the unnecessary delay can be
curtailed.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondent-
accused had submitted that upon transfer of the Presiding Officer of the
trial court, he no longer remains the Special Judge, CBI and unless
powers of Special Judge, CBI are especially conferred by the
Government upon the judicial officer, he cannot deal with protest petition
in this CBI case.
After having heard both the sides and on perusal of the impugned
order and the material on record, I find that the protest petition cannot be
entrusted to the same judicial officer who had dealt with it earlier because
he is not having the powers of Special Judge, CBI which are conferred by
special Notification by the Government. It is indeed unfortunate that the
hearing on the protest petition had spanned over a period of three years.
To allay the apprehension of inordinate delay again, it is directed that the
present Special Judge, CBI shall provide a time bound hearing on the
protest petition with liberty to the parties to place on record their short
synopsis. Let all the endeavours be made by the trial court to decide the
protest petition on or before 30th May, 2015.
With aforesaid directions, the above captioned two petitions and
applications are disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 10, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No.467/2015 Page 3
Crl.M.C.No.468/2015
