Delhi High Court
Tuncay Alankus Esq. vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 17 May, 2017
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 17th May, 2017
+ W.P. (CRL.) 1834/2016 and Crl.M.A.9529/2016, 9530/2016
TUNCAY ALANKUS ESQ. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bahar U. Barqi, Advocate with
Mr. Mahmood Alam, Advocate
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. N.N.
Ojha, Special Public Prosecutor and
Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is a foreign national, who was extradited to India
in October, 1997 in the context of proceedings of the criminal case
arising out of the crime registered by Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI) as RC 3(A)/96/CBI/ACU(1). On the basis of charge sheet filed
on 26.12.1997, inter alia, involving offences punishable under
Sections 120-B read with Section 409/420 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC) and under Sections 7/11 and 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)
(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), the
court of special judge took cognizance and issued process.
2. By the petition at hand filed on 31.05.2016, the petitioner
invokes the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) praying for the order dated 27.07.1996
issuing warrant of arrest leading to the extradition and prosecution to
be quashed.
3. When the petition came up before the court for the first time on
03.06.2016 it was noted that the order impugned herein was rendered
by the special judge as far back as on 27.06.1996. This was, as would
be recorded on 19.07.2016, to put the petitioner to notice that the
petition appeared to be barred by delay and laches. The matter had
been adjourned by proceedings of 03.06.2016. Since the counsel for
the petitioner had made a request. On 19.07.2016, the Additional
Solicitor General (ASG) for India appeared for the respondent CBI.
He submitted that the petition had been filed with a view to delay the
ongoing trial. This submission having been refuted, respondent was
called upon to place on record details of the relevant facts and events
with liberty also given to the petitioner to file his own synopsis. The
matter was adjourned to 21.10.2016. Eventually, when the matter
came up for hearing on 03.02.2017, the petitioner took adjournment as
his counsel was not available.
4. The respondent has submitted details of the proceedings, duly
tabulated, of the criminal case in which the petitioner is facing
prosecution. A synopsis has also been filed by the petitioner.
5. It is noted that the charge was framed in the trial against the
petitioner on 11.02.1999. The prosecution had concluded its evidence
on 19.02.2004. The statement of the accused persons, including the
petitioner herein, had been recorded on 26.02.2004 and 19.05.2004.
Thereafter the case entered the stage of defence evidence. The
petitioner submitted list of sixty three defence witnesses. Questions
were raised as to the relevancy of the evidence of such witnesses. The
trial court by order dated 11.10.2004 allowed seven witnesses to be
examined. Later, in November, 2004, the co-accused submitted a list
of twenty-five defence witnesses. The trial court by order dated
29.11.2004 allowed two witnesses to be examined in defence. The
gist of the proceedings thus far indicates that the recording of the
evidence in defence is still not complete. The delay has been mostly
for the reasons attributable to the petitioner or his co-accused.
6. The trial is now in its final legs. Questioning the issuance of
warrant of arrest which led to the extradition of the petitioner from his
native State twenty years after the event with no reason explained for
such inordinate delay is incomprehensible.
7. Given the fact that trial court found sufficient evidence to not
only cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and issue process under
Section 204 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner but also later put him on
trial by framing charges, said orders having attained finality, itself
shows that no illegality can be attached to the issuance of warrant of
arrest.
8. The petition is not only badly time barred, but also devoid of
any substance. Clearly, it is an attempt to stall the proceedings before
the trial court even further.
9. Petition along with accompanying application stand dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
MAY 17, 2017
vk
