TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 3-7-2017 - I. S. Mehta, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. M. P. Sahay and Ms.Purnima Raj, Advocates For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Spl. P.P for CBI with Mr.Philomon Kani Handa,Adv. Mr.Ajay Digpaul, CGSC for UOI JUDGMENT I. S. Mehta, J. 1. By virtue of the present petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners, i.e. M.S. Badhan, Sibnath Mal and Rajesh Sarda, seeks to quash and set aside the impugned summoning order dated 23.04.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-6, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in CR No. 06A/14 and RC No. 01(A)/2013/ACU-VIII in AC-III/CBI/ND under Sections 7/12/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act titled CBI vs. N.K. Rai etc. 2. The brief facts stated are that a case was registered on the basis of source information that Nand Kishore Rai, Superintendent of Customs, Custom House, Strand Road, Kolkata in criminal conspiracy with Surendra Singh Bisht, Superintendent of Customs, Kolkata Port Commissionerate; P. Vijay Kumar, Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence(DRI), Mumbai; Pydi Rama Prasad, Deputy Commissioner, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence(DGCEI), Kolkata; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the bribe money started from Rajesh Sarda(petitioner herein) who was seeking permission for transportation of his cargo to Nepal by rail and this amount was handed over to N.K. Rai through accused Shib Nath Mal(petitioner herein) and the amount was given to accused Surendra Singh Bisht who delivered it to accused Pydi Rama Prasad. Thereafter, the accused Pydi Rama Prasad bought the amount of ₹ 5 lakhs in Delhi and delivered it to the petitioner- M.S. Badhan at his residence. This chain and movement of the bribe money was established through the telephonic conversation. 7. Thereafter, the charge-sheet/closure report dated 28.05.2014 was submitted by the respondent/CBI before the Court of the learned Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-06, Patiala House Court, New Delhi wherein it specified the role played by each of the accused towards the commission of the offence and the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer. 8. Consequently, the learned Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-06, Patiala House Court, New Delhi took cognizance against the petitioner-Rajesh Sarda (A6) and the petitioner-Sibnath Mal (A-7) for the offences punishable under Section 120B IPC and under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 169. Release of accused when evidence deficient.- If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit him for trial. 15. If the learned Trial Court finds that there is no sufficient evidence qua the present petitioners then the learned Trial Court has the option to exercise its judicious mind under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation and collecting material evidence qua the present petitioners. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereunder:- (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub- section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oratory analysis) of the charge-sheet wherein positive opinion was given by the CFSL expert with regard to the voice specimen of the petitioners-M.S. Badhan and Rajesh Sarda, and further at point 16(Brief facts of the case) of the charge-sheet wherein the role of the petitioners were discussed along with the other accused persons which is reproduced as under:- Role of Shri MS Badhan Investigation discloses that Shri MS Badhan was the authority to grant approval for permission of transportation of cargo of M/s Universal Agency through rail route. The bribe amount received from Shri Rajesh Sarda was meant to be finally delivered to him. From recorded conversation, it appears that he received a bribe of ₹ 5 lakh from Shri P. Ram Prasad in New Delhi. There was no express demand from his side for the work. The analysis of the telephonic conversation shows that he was very guarded about the whole transaction. On telephone he scolded Shri P. Vijay Kumar for conducting the whole transaction without taking precaution. He visited Kolkata on 26.10.2012 where Shri P. Vijay Kumar discussed with him the permission to the proposal of M/s Universal Agency. Role of Shri Rajesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any evidence against the petitioners in the charge-sheet filed by the respondent CBI. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case State of Haryana Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal Ors., AIR (1992) SC 604, which has laid down certain category for quashing of the proceedings, the relevant portion is reproduced hereunder:- (a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; 22. In the light of aforesaid discussions, the cognizance taken qua the present petitioners without taking recourse under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation is hereby set aside. 23. In these circumstance, I set aside the impugned orders dated 23.04.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI)-06, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and quash the summoning order dated 23.04.2015 against the petitioners. 24. Consequently, the present petitions are allowed. One copy of this judgment be placed on the files of CRL.REV.P. 346/2015 and CRL.REV.P. 347/2015. 25. Let one copy of this judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
