Delhi High Court
A K. Sinha vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 18 July, 2018
$~85
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 18th July, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 913/2018 & Crl.M.A. 3383-84/2018
A K. SINHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Chirag Jamwal, Adv.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anupam S. Sharma, Spl.
PP for CBI with Mr. Prakash
Airan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is facing trial in criminal case no. 12/2016
registered on the basis of charge-sheet submitted on conclusion of
investigation into RC no. 02/1986 of the respondent Central Bureau of
Investigation on the charge for offence under Section 5 (2) read with
Section 5 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in the Court of
Special Judge at Karkardooma Courts Complex. The present petition
has been filed on 17.02.2018 with the prayer that this Court, in
exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), set aside the order dated
03.02.2018 of the Special Judge whereby the application of the
petitioner contending that the sanction for his prosecution was vitiated
and on that account the proceedings were liable to be dropped, was
disposed of with the observations that the contentions raised would be
considered at the time of final adjudication of the case, the case having
already reached by then the stage of defence evidence. The petitioner
places reliance on judgments of the Supreme Courts in Mohd. Iqbal
vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 677 and Central Bureau of
Investigation vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014) 14 SCC 295 to
contend that the view taken by the Special Judge is not correct and
further that the trial court was duty bound to consider the contentions
and take a call on the same vis-à-vis the validity of the sanction and
pass a reasoned order dealing with the issues raised.
2. Per contra, the CBI argues that the application is highly belated
and, therefore, the view taken by the trial judge cannot be taken
exception to, it being settled law that objection to the validity of the
sanction must be raised at the earliest. It is pointed out that even the
defence evidence has been concluded and the case is now ripe for final
arguments to be heard, the Special Judge having taken a very balanced
view by observing that the contentions urged regarding validity of
sanction would be heard in the final analysis.
3. The orders granting sanction for prosecution against the
petitioner were issued on 13.06.1990 and 22.11.90 on the basis of
prosecution that was launched. The charges were framed against him
on 31.05.2005. Thereafter, the trial commenced. The prosecution
concluded its evidence some time in 2016 and thereafter the statement
of the petitioner as accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
followed by he being given opportunity to lead defence evidence. It
was at that late stage that the application was moved by him
questioning the validity of sanction. By no stretch of imagination, it
can be said that he has raised the issue concerning validity of sanction
at the earliest.
4. The view taken by the Special Judge is very fair. The
contentions of the petitioner would be taken up by the Special Judge at
the time of final adjudication, the case having already ripened for final
arguments to be heard.
5. In these circumstances, this Court ought not interfere at this
stage of process.
6. The petition and the pending applications are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY18, 2018
nk
