Delhi High Court
Gopal Bansal vs State Through Cbi on 31 January, 2020
$~51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 31.01.2020
+ CRL.M.C. 551/2020
GOPAL BANSAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ravi Soni with Mr. Mohd.
Shariq, Advs.
versus
STATE THROUGH CBI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Anupam S. Sharrma, SPP with
Mr. Prakarsh Airan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 2289/2020
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
CRL.M.A. 2290/2020
3. In view of the averments made in the application, the application is
allowed and disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 551/2020 & CRL.M.A. 2288/2020
4. Notice issued. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of respondent.
With the consent of the parties, the present petition is being disposed of.
5. Vide present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby to set
aside order dated 13.08.2019 passed in Crl. Rev. 16/2019 passed by learned
Spl. Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts.
6. Facts of the case are that petitioner became member of M/s Bellur
Cooperative Group Housing Society with membership no. 276. Thereafter,
on 20.12.2002, petitioner became the secretary of said society after the
elections were conducted by the management committee.
7. In the compliance of order dated 02.08.2005 passed by this Court in
Writ Petition (Civil) NO. 10066/2004 to investigate the matter of above
named society regarding the allotment of land, genuineness of office
bearers, their present-past performances and whether these office bearers
were some contractors or Sub Contractors by profession and undue gain was
caused to the society and others in revival of the defunct societies from
1983 onwards.
8. Vide order dated 02.09.2013 Ld ASJ, Special CBI Judge, discharged
all the accused persons from the charge u/s 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act and remanded back the matter to the concerned court of
CMM for the trial of remaining offences.
9. Vide order dated 02.02.2019 the Ld. CMM, Rohini Courts, Delhi
charged the petitioner for the offences u/s 420/468/471 IPC r/w 120B IPC.
10. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred a criminal revision against the
order dated 02.02.2019 which is registered as Crl. Revision No. 65 of 2019
and the same was assigned to the court of Sh. Deepak Garg, Ld. ASJ, Rohini
Courts, Delhi.
11. However, vide dated 06.04.2019 this Court transferred all the matters
pertaining to the Prevention of Corruption of matters to the Rouse Avenue
Courts Complex.
12. Ld. ASJ was apprised of the fact of the order dated 06.04.2019 and
Ld. ASJ observed, considering the safety of the issues it would be
expedient if the revision is also transferred to Rouse Avenue Courts for just
and proper disposal and placed the matter before the court of Ld. District
and Session Judge, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi
13. On 15.07.2019, counsel for the petitioner withdrew the said revision
with the liberty to file a fresh revision before the appropriate forum.
14. On 18.07.2019, the petitioner filed the fresh Criminal Revision
petition before the Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi. However, Ld. Special
Judge CBI-06, PC Act, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi dismissed the
revision petition vide order dated 13.08.2019 of the petitioner on the ground
of limitation without considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of CBI submits that petitioner
himself has withdrawn the revision petition with liberty to file a fresh before
the appropriate forum. While considering the revision petition No.16/2019,
learned Judge has rightly dismissed the same because there is a delay of 76
days in filing the revision petition. Thus, there is no merit in the present
petition and the same may be dismissed.
16. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had already challenged the order
dated 13.08.2019 passed by Ld. Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi
well within the limitation. However, due to technicalities and transfer of
cases from all district courts to Rouse Avenue Courts and the trial court
record of the present case has also been transferred to the Rouse Avenue
Court. Therefore, Ld. ASJ considering the security reasons observed that it
would be expedient if the said revision petition is transferred to Rouse
Avenue Courts.
17. In view of the aforesaid fact, learned Special Judge has failed to
appreciate that since due to technical issues the matter was transferred by the
Ld. ASJ Sh. Deepak Garg to the Ld. District & Session Judge, Rohini
Courts, who after considering the matter asked the petitioner to withdraw the
said revision petition with the liberty to file a fresh revision petition before
the appropriate forum. The counsel for the petitioner withdrew the said
revision petition with the liberty to file a fresh before the appropriate forum
and thereafter he immediately filed the same. But Ld. Special Judge in my
considered opinion has wrongly observed that the revision petition filed by
the petitioner is barred by limitation. The delay in filing the revision petition
was out of control on the part of the petitioner and has occurred due to the
reasons as aforesaid. Therefore, in such cases technicality should not be
looked into and the Learned Special Judge should have decided the revision
petition, filed by petitioner, on merits.
18. Accordingly, I hereby set aside order dated 13.08.2019 passed by
learned Special Judge and the said Court is directed to decide the revision
petition filed by petition on merit by giving an opportunity to both the
parties of being heard.
19. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and disposed of.
20. Proceedings before the Trial Court shall remain stayed till disposal of
the revision petition.
21. Both the parties are directed to appear before Revisional Court on
10.02.2020.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
JANUARY 31, 2020/ms
