TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council and Anr. [1970 (2) TMI 134 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by High Court dismissing a petition in limine where relief was sought against the respondent in that case, whose actions with regard to the Century. There are no disputed questions of facts. The reply to the LR dated 27.06.2001 as well as the relevant Fax dated 13.01.19998 sent to Mr. Barjatya are conspicuous by their absence in the SP’s Report dated 30.10.2001. It is not surprising, that the order granting sanction also does not allude to either of the afore- mentioned relevant documents, as it is a verbatim copy of the draft sanction order. This Court is not precluded from determining questions of fact under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, since the dispute arising in the present case can be very well be determined by looking at the official documents and material on record including the pleadings of the parties. Stage at which the validity of sanction can be determined - Held that:- The legal position that emerges is that the question of validity of a sanction must be decided as soon as it is raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is the umpteenth round of litigation between the parties arising out of the subject RCs. 3. At the very outset it is noticed that as a consequence of the registration of the subject RCs, the petitioner was placed under suspension which was renewed from time to time for a period of over 14 years during the pendency of a Disciplinary Enquiry. The suspension was finally revoked and set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 22.11.2013 rendered in Civil Appeal No. 9454/2013, as elaborated hereinafter. The Supreme Court, returned a finding that the proceedings against the petitioner suffered from the vice of legal malice. It is further noticed that when the Supreme Court passed the afore-stated judgment and order dated 22.11.2013, a period of 9 years remained for the petitioner to attain the age of superannuation. Currently, only 6 years remain till the petitioner reaches the age of superannuation. The petitioner was also arrested on two occasions namely, 23.12.1999 and 09.12.2000 in relation to the subject RCs. 4. The case in RC No. SI8 E0001 1999 is grounded entirely on the disclosure statement of one Mr. Abhishek Verma. The curious flip flops of Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Directorate (Delhi Zone). It is an admitted position that subsequent to a complaint filed on behalf of Mr. Barjatya, that has fructified into the subject RC No.SI8 E 0001 1999 dated 29.01.1999 as well as order granting sanction for prosecution dated 21.06.2002 and order framing charges dated 17.12.2012, no investigation whatsoever has been conducted against the said Mr. Barjatya qua the Fax in question by the official respondents. (7) Later in March, 1998 Mr. Barjatya submitted to the Enforcement Directorate a letter dated 17.02.1998 obtained by one Mr. Mandeep Kapur, the Chartered Accountant of Mr. Barjatya allegedly from one Mr. Eric Huggenberger stated to be an attorney of the Swiss Bank Corporation, to the effect that the Fax in question was forged and fabricated. In the SP s Report dated 30.10.2001 it is asserted that when this letter was produced before the concerned court in India, the Enforcement Directorate questioned the authenticity of the said letter, and Mr. Mandeep Kapur, Chartered Accountant went to Zurich once again and obtained a letter dated 20.03.1998 from the Swiss Bank Corporation to the effect that Mr. Eric Huggenberger was the attorney of the Bank and was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Balwinder Singh, DIG, SU, CBI, New Delhi. It is an admitted position that the subject RC is substantially founded on the basis of the material provided by the latter to the Director, Enforcement Directorate. (11) A criminal case bearing RC No.SI8 1999 E 0001 was registered on 29.01.1999 under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 195/467/469/471 IPC and Sections 7 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCA') against unknown officials of the Delhi Zone of Enforcement Directorate . (12) The petitioner had been in service for about 14 years, when he was placed under suspension vide order dated 28.12.1999 as a consequence of the criminal cases (bearing RC Nos. SI8 E0001 1999 and SI9 E0006 1999) registered against him, which as afore-stated was extended from time to time. (13) At the instance of the CBI, a letter-rogatory (for short LR ) dated 29.01.2001 was dispatched to the Competent Judicial Authority in Switzerland. (14) The said LR dated 29.01.2001 specifically alluded to the letter obtained by Mr. Mandeep Kapur, Chartered Accountant of Mr. Barjatya from Mr. Eric Huggenberger (an attorney of the Swi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and E-mail numbers. If possible to find out, whether they have any links with Mr. Barjatya, Mr. Abhishek Verma, Ms. Asmita Verma and Mr. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal. 7) To obtain all documents and details of the accounts held by Ms. Asmita Verma, Mr. Abhishek Verma, Mrs. Kamal Kumar and Mr. Subhash Chandra Barjatya with Swiss Bank Corporation, Zurich, with the date of opening of account, account number, swift code, detailed statements of accounts from the date of opening till December, 1997. 8) To authenticate the letters dated 17.02.98 and 20.3.98 of Mr. Eric Huggenberger and Mr. Rene Deitiker respectively addressed to Mr. Mandeep Kapur, Chartered Accountant of Mr. Barjatya. 5. LIST OF DOCUMENTS REQUIRED 1. Account opening form of Royalle Foundation and statement of accounts for the period October, 1997 to January, 1998. 2. Addresses, contact telephone numbers, passport details including place of issue of the authorized signatories of the account of Royalle Foundation, Zurich. 3. Copy of Debit advice, value dated 23.12.97, issued by Swiss Bank Corporation, Zurich, Switzerland which reflects a transfer of US $ 150,000 from the account of Royalle Foundation, Zurich, Swi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stfach, 8098 Zurich Office of the District Investigation Magistrate IV Canton Zurich Mr. Ivo Hoppler Postbox 9680, 8036 Zurich (seal with date) 27 June 2001 Your Ref. 3/2001/000281 Our Ref. TT83 C363-YJI-2001-2315 Dear Mr. Hoppler, This has reference to your order for entering/cooperating in the above mentioned case. We would like to give the following answers to the queries raised in the Request of India. A business connection (account) was existed at the said time in the name of Royalle Foundation, Vaduz at the former Swiss Bank Corporation Branch at Zurich- Paradeplatz. After checking the documents of opening of the account and the A-Form, we can confirm that the names mentioned in the Request, Viz. Asmita Verma, Abhishek Verma, Kamal Kumar, Subhash Chandra Barjatya and Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, were not entered as persons empowered for signing the documents or as operating persons. As already communicated over phone since no connection between our client and the persons mentioned in the Request could be traced, we are not in a position to give out any document of Royalle Foundation other than the following: In the files we could find some docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Swiss Bank Corporation. (21) It would be relevant to observe from the said reply dated 27.06.2001 that the Competent Judicial Authority in Switzerland queried for further details of persons mentioned in the LR so as to enable the former to make further enquiries as to whether the said persons operated any accounts with the Swiss Bank Corporation. (22) No such request requiring further information with regard to the persons mentioned in the LR that included Mr. Barjatya was forthcoming from the official respondents. The matter qua the investigation into the acts of omission or commission that may have been attributed to Mr. Barjatya was closed. (23) On 30.10.2001, vide reference No.9582/3/Cr/1(E)/99-SIU-VIII the report of the concerned SP in RC No.SI8 1999 E 0001 along with a draft sanction order seeking prosecution of the petitioner amongst others was sent to the Additional Secretary (Admn.) cum CVO, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. The said communication dated 30.10.2001 was admittedly accompanied by a list of documents and a list of witnesses in this behalf. (24) However, insofar as, the relevant documents themselves are concerned, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09.2001 instituted a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3741/2001 assailing the said order. (28) This Court by way of the judgment and order dated 20.08.2007 set aside the order dated 07.09.2001 on the ground that the latter order was procured by suppression of material facts. The CBI carried the said judgment and order dated 20.08.2007 to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Criminal Appeal No.1837/2013 instituted on behalf of the CBI assailing the order dated 20.08.2007 passed by this Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 22.11.2013 and the trial court was directed to look into the matter of grant of tendering pardon to the said Mr. Abhishek Verma afresh. (29) In terms thereof, the CBI moved an application before the trial court stating therein that it no longer supported the case of Mr. Abhishek Verma for being granted pardon and made an Approver in the subject case in RC No.SI8 E0001 1998, in view of his criminal antecedents. (30) Mr. Abhishek Verma through an application dated 31.07.2014, made before the Special Judge, CBI, Delhi has retracted from his earlier statement under Section 164 of the Code, implicating the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering these representations, the officers of the Department of Revenue noted that various representations were made by the petitioner to the Revenue Secretary since 05.11.2001. The office notings bearing reference F.No.16/1/99- Ad.I-C made by senior officers of the Department of Revenue are reproduced below:- 17. Since the time limit of two months was expiring on 21.06.2002, a decision was taken to grant sanction of prosecution against Shri Aggarwal on the basis of SP's report only as desired by CBI Director and CVC, Investigation record of the case were, however, not made available to the Department as agreed to by CBI in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and as reflected in the order dated 09.04.2002 referred to in para 8 above for perusal and satisfaction of the sanctioning authority. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 24. It is not clear as to how CBI, the apex investigating agency, did not consider it appropriate to, include such a vital information received in response to letter Rogatory in the SP's report while seeking grant of sanction for prosecution. The reply received by CBI on 30.07.2001 in response to Letter Rogatory brings o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply addressed by the competent judicial authority in Switzerland dated 27.06.2001 to the LR dated 29.01.2001 as well as communication dated 13.01.1998 sent by the Swiss Bank Corporation to Mr. Barjatya. (38) The petitioner asserts that it is only then it dawned upon him that the order granting sanction to prosecute him was passed by the Competent Authority by way of order dated 21.06.2002 without considering the said relevant documents. (39) This Court by way of order dated 21.01.2003 directed the Special Judge, Delhi to expeditiously decide the application of discharge including the issue of validity of the sanction order dated 21.06.2002 pending before it. The order dated 21.01.2003 read as follows:- The application for discharge including the issue of sanction filed by the petitioner is pending before the learned Special Judge, Delhi. We direct the learned Special Judge to decide the application of discharge as expeditiously as possible. The matter is adjourned sine die with liberty to revive the petition immediately after the order is passed by the learned Special Judge. The learned Special Judge would decide the application of discharge without being infl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A(MKS)/2011 dated 05.04.2011. The opinion stated as follows: 15. In the instant cases, in the sanction orders it is mentioned that sanction has been accorded after fully and carefully examining the material placed before him including the documents and statement of witnesses with regard to said allegations. But the noting/correspondence of the files of the administrative Department do not subscribe to or support the claim made in the sanctions orders, as admittedly no such documents and statement of witnesses were ever provided to the sanctioning authority by CBI. 16. In view of the above legal and factual analysis, it is established that the claim in both the orders that the sanction has been accorded after fully and carefully examining the material placed before him including the documents and statement of witnesses with regard to said allegations, is factually incorrect. An inference may, therefore, be validly drawn that the sanction orders dated 21.06.2002 and 26.11.2002 had been issued without proper application of mind as all the relevant and relied upon material/documents which admittedly had not been supplied by the CBI to the sanctioning authority. As such, both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... withdrawn vide opinion dated 8.8.2011, the matter was not brought to the notice of the then Hon'ble Minister of Law Justice and had been tendered at his own level. (47) The petitioner by way of Original Application No. 2842/2010 challenged the order of his suspension dated 28.12.1999, which was extended from time to time for about 12 years. The Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CAT') vide order dated 16.12.2011 directed the official respondents to convene a Special Review Committee to consider the revocation of suspension of the petitioner, who had by then been under suspension for a period of almost 12 years. The Tribunal in its order observed that the respondents had primarily relied upon the opinion of CBI for not reinstating the petitioner. (48) The Special Review Board passed an order dated 12.01.2012 whereby the suspension of the petitioner was continued on the ground that the views of the CBI were not available on the revocation of suspension of the petitioner. The order of the Review Committee was not a speaking order. By way of Original Application No. 495/2012 the petitioner challenged the said order of the Review Committee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersonal hearing to the petitioner in light of the opinion of the Law Ministry and requested for an early hearing from the Department of Revenue vide its letters dated 19.02.2015 and 18.04.2015. (52) In this regard this Court vide order dated 06.08.2015 observed that no steps had been taken by the Department of Revenue to hear the petitioner and it had not proceeded to call him in view of a noting by the Director of the Department of Revenue. The order of this Court dated 06.08.2015 is reproduced below: An application for adjournment has been circulated on behalf of Mr Sanjeev Narula, learned Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) appearing on behalf of the Union of India. Mr Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, opposes the said application for adjournment on the ground that the matter is part-heard before this court and the respondents herein have been seeking time all along. Mr Jethmalani, learned senior counsel has handed over a copy of a communication dated 19.02.2015 from the Prime Minister s Office to the Secretary, Department of Revenue which reads as under:- PRIME MINISTER S OFFICE South Block New Delhi-11001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld in the highest esteem, and ought to have been informed of the decision taken by the Director of the Department of Revenue at the earliest opportunity. Mr. Kalra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of UOI, states that he shall obtain instructions in this behalf and apprise the court on the next date of hearing. Renotify on 10.08.2015. A copy of this order be given dasti under signature of Court Master to counsel for the parties. (53) In view of the foregoing order, a copy of communication dated 07.08.2015 was handed over to this Court on 10.08.2015 wherein it was stated that the petitioner was to be accorded a personal hearing on 24.08.2015 at 02:30 PM by the Department of Revenue in the Chamber of the Under Secretary of the Government of India. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents assured the court that a decision by way of a speaking order will be taken. In view of this assurance the matter was adjourned for further hearing. (54) Subsequently, when the matter came up for hearing on 02.09.2015, the counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents urged that a decision had been taken by the Department of Revenue on the representatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer of this case Shri V.K. Pandey, will show the documents and also explain the evidence as and when required. Further List of witnesses and List of documents will be provided, if necessary. Emphasis Supplied. (5) It is the case of the petitioner that the Investigating Officer continued with the investigation and recorded the statements of as many as 13 witnesses between 10.05.2002 to 16.10.2002, out of which statements of 10 witnesses were recorded after sending the SP s report dated 24.05.2002 to the sanctioning authority. (6) The CVC after examining the said case advised the Ministry of Finance to grant sanction for prosecution. As per the respondents the Investigating Officer visited the Directorate of Income Tax (Vigilance) in September 2002 and placed necessary documents for the perusal of the Additional Director, Income Tax (Vigilance), who was seized of the matter pertaining to the sanction for prosecution of the respondent. (7) The Finance Minister accorded sanction vide order dated 02.11.2002 and as a consequence thereof, the sanction order was issued vide order dated 26.11.2002 under the seal and signature of the Under Secretary (V L), Ministry of Fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.05.2004 to the Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance). The said letter stated as below: The concerned Vigilance file has been examined in this Department and, prima facie, it appears that the records relied upon by the CBI were not received in the office of DGIT (Vigilance) and were obviously, therefore, not examined before sanction of prosecution. This was also pointed out to the Vigilance Department, including your predecessor, by the Revenue Secretary during discussions. It is, therefore, necessary that the concerned records including those of the I.T. Department for the relevant period be requisitioned from the CBI and examined by the Vigilance Wing of the Income Tax Department. The finding of the examination may be sent to them within 10 days, based on which a final view will be taken on the representation of Sh. Ashok Aggarwal. Emphasis Supplied. (10) The Additional Director of Investigation (Vigilance), then sent a letter dated 17.05.2004 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CBI. The said letter stated as follows: Kindly refer to your letter no. 164/3/S 19 1999 E 0006 dated 24-5-2002 on the above subject wherewith the SP's report No.3 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plications and dismissed the same vide order dated 28.07.2007, holding that it could not be determined at that particular stage that the order granting sanction dated 26.11.2002 was invalid. However, the Special Judge was constrained to observe that the case diaries, documents collected by the IO during the course of the investigation, statement of witnesses under section 161 and 164 of the Code were not considered by the sanctioning authority. (13) Further, during trial the Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the official respondents on 11.07.2007, has conceded that only the SP s Report dated 24.05.2002 along with a list of evidence (oral and documentary) were sent to the sanctioning authority for the purpose of according the sanction dated 26.11.2002. The order dated 11.07.2007 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Delhi is reproduced as below: CBI vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal etc. 11.7.07 Present: Shri N.K. Sharma, Special PP alongwith Dy. S.P. Rajiv Dwevedi, Pairvi Officer. Accused Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, Vijay Aggarwal, Shish Ram Sainin and SM Jindal on bail with Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Senior Adv. alongwith Mrs. Lata Krishnamurthy and Mr. Girish Shukla, Adv. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xxxx xxxx xxxx 30. In the present case, petitioner has raised objections to the validity of sanction at the very initial stage, i.e. even before arguments on charge could be advanced. However, the trial court has not recorded any finding in terms of clause (b) of subsection (3) and sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Act, that non production of the relevant material before the sanctioning authority at the time of grant of sanction has not resulted in a failure of justice . 31. Under these circumstances, it would be appropriate to require the trial court to record the findings in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Act. 32. Hence, the impugned order, passed by the learned Special Judge is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court with direction to record a finding in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (3) and sub- section (4) of Section 19 of the Act. The trial court, if it deems fit, for this purpose, can examine the sanctioning authority as a witness even before charge, keeping in view the provisions of Section 311 CrPC. 33. The trial court shall decide this matter within three months from today and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lenged before the Trial Court and during the arguments, it was fairly conceded by the ld. counsel of CBI on 11.02.2007 that only SP's Report along with the list of documents had been sent to the Sanctioning Authority (F/E in linked file Vol. VI). It is further noticed from the file that the lists sent along with the Sp's report were incomplete. From the file, it is further noticed that a Crl. Rev. Petition No. 589/2007 filed by Sh. Aggarwal, the High Court of Delhi vide order dated 03.10.2007 (F/F in link file Vol. VI) had conclusively held that before according the sanction the sanctioning authority had not considered the entire material since the same was never sent by the CBI and the declaration in the aforesaid sanction order that before according sanction, the relied upon material had been, considered and examined by the sanctioning authority is incorrect (paras 23 and 28 of the Order). 10. It is also important to note here that subsequently the sanctioning authority (i.e. the then Finance Minister) had filed an affidavit dated 03.11.2007 in the Trial Court (F/G) wherein statement of facts in paragraphs 8 and 24 of the order of the High Court 3.10.2007 were conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D.O. No.8298/3/1/99(Pt file)/2011/UW IV, reconsidered and withdrew the opinion of the Ministry of Law Justice dated 05.04.2011 vide FTS No.2378/LS/2011 dated 08.08.2011, without a speaking order. (21) With regard to this revision of opinion by the Law Secretary vide FTS No.2378/LS/2011 dated 08.08.2011, the CVC vide OM No.014/ITX/016/241902 dated 20.03.2014 asked the Ministry of Law Justice to submit the entire factual matrix in relation to the withdrawal of opinion dated 05.04.2011 by the Law Secretary on 08.08.2011. The Ministry of Law Justice opined that the withdrawal of opinion by the Law Secretary was contrary to regular procedure adopted by the Ministry. (22) Thereafter, the CVC vide its Office Memorandum No.014/ITX/016/280 dated 13.04.2015 observed that the order on sanction dated 26.11.2002 was not in conformity with the guidelines reiterated by the Do P T in Circular dated 26.03.2015. 7. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would urge that the sanction order dated 21.06.2002, which is the genesis of the cognizance taken by the Special Judge, CBI, Delhi in the subject case in RC No.SI8 E0001 1999 is invalid since a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court to the notings made by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue in its reference bearing F.No.16/1/99-Ad.ED dated 01.10.2014considering the opinion of the Ministry of Law Justice dated 05.04.2011, invalidating the sanction orders dated 21.06.2002 and 26.11.2002. It is submitted that the aforementioned notings are further endorsed by the CVC in its Office Memorandum dated 13.04.2015 and the letters of the PMO dated 19.02.2015 and 18.04.2015 requesting the Department of Revenue to afford a personal hearing to the petitioner. 11. In order to substantiate the afore-stated submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. M. M. Rajendran , reported as (1998) 9 SCC 268 and Mansukhlal V. Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat , reported as AIR 1997 SC 3400. 12. Mr. Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would urge that the issue as to whether the sanction granted by the Competent Authority to prosecute the petitioner was valid or otherwise ought to have been determined by the Special Judge, CBI, Delhi at the time of taking cognizance, in terms of the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on charge could be advanced. 16. Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are that the Special Judge, CBI cannot take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7,10,11,13 and 15 of POCA unless it has determined the validity or otherwise of a sanction for prosecution of a public servant. In this behalf reliance was placed on the decision of the Privy Council in Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka vs. The King, reported as AIR (35) 1948 PC 82. 17. It has furthermore been urged on behalf of Mr. Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the non-obstante requirement in Section 19(3) of POCA relates only to the Code, as specifically stipulated therein and consequently that provision does not override the mandate of the provisions of Section 19(1) of POCA. It was argued that section 19(3) POCA is only applicable to courts exercising revisional or appellate jurisdiction and the Special Judge is not bound by the requirement to look into failure of justice under section 19(3) POCA. It was therefore submitted that the Special Judge while passing the impugned order dated 24.05.2014, lost sight of the bar to take cognizanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pl.) 1 335; Pepsi Food Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate Ors. reported as 1998 (5) SCC 749; State of West Bengal vs. Swapan Kumar Guha, reported as 1982 (1) SCC 561; State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi reported as (2005) 1 SCC 568. 22. Mr. Jethmalani, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would also urge that the investigation conducted by the CBI in the subject criminal cases is tainted with mala-fides. 23. Further, Mr. Jethmalani, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner invited the Court's attention to the mala-fide conduct displayed by the official respondents in not reinstating the petitioner till date despite the order dated 22.11.2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9454/2013. 24. Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Union of India and the CBI of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as it raises disputed questions of facts. In order to strengthen this submission, reliance was placed on Union of India vs. T.R. Verma , reported as (1958) SCR 499 , K.K. Das Chouhary vs. State of West Bengal , reported as (1972) 2 SCC 420 and State of Bihar vs. P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Delhi on 17.12.2005 framing charges under Sections 120B IPC read with sections 468/469/471 IPC and Section 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of POCA is vitiated on account of the circumstance that the order dated 21.06.2002 granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner is non-est, void ab-initio, invalid and in violation of this Court s order dated 09.04.2002 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.938/2001 instituted by the petitioner herein? 29. The sole issue that arises for determination in Criminal Revision Petition No.338/2014 is whether the sanction order for prosecution dated 26.11.2002 is invalid and in violation of this Court's order in Writ Petition(Criminal) No.938/2001 instituted by the petitioner herein for non- production of relevant material as well as for want of due application of mind by the sanctioning authority? 30. For the determination of the issues raised in the present petition, it is necessary for brevity to reproduce the following statutory provisions: (i) Section 19 of the POCA:- 19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.- (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t sanction; (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature. (ii) Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:- 197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants. (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction- (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government: Provided that where the alleged offence was commit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magis- trate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held. (iii) Section 8 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the CVC Act ):- 8. Functions and powers of Central Vigilance Commission.- 1. The functions and powers of the Commission shall be to a. exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in so far as it relates to the investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or an offence with which a public servant specified in sub-section (2) may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, be charged at the same trial; b. give directions to the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the purpose of discharging the responsibility entrusted to it under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946: Provided that while exercising the powers of superintendence under clause (a) or giving directions under this clause, the Commission shall not exercise powers in such a manner so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued by the Government and to confer power upon the Commission to issue directions relating to any policy matters; 2. The persons referred to in clause (d) of sub- section (1) are as follows:- a. members of All-India Services serving in connection with the affairs of the Union and Group A officers of the Central Government; b. such level of officers of the corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and other local authorities, owned or controlled by the Central Government, as that Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf: Provided that till such time a notification is issued under this clause, all officers of the said corporations, companies, societies and local authorities shall be deemed to be the persons referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (1). (iv) Para 22.16 of The CBI Manual, 2005:- 22.16 On completion of investigation in cases covered in items 22.15.1 22.15.2 above, the CBI shall send its report to the Administrative Authority along with the relevant statement of witnesses recorded during investigation and the documents. The Supreme Court judgment in the State of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ten by the Swiss Bank Corporation. Mr. Mandeep Kapur, further procured a letter dated 20.3.1998 from the Swiss Bank, stating that Mr. Huggenberger was an authorized attorney of the former bank. 6) On a complaint instituted by Mr. Barjatya and based on the material provided by him, an investigation was conducted into the allegation that the Fax in question was forged and fabricated and had been planted by the petitioner. 7) A criminal case bearing RC No.SI8/1999/E0001 came to be registered on a 29.01.1999 under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 195/467/469/471 IPC and section 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) POCA against unknown officials of Delhi Zone of Enforcement Directorate on the basis of the complaint filed by Mr. Barjatya. 8) During investigations Mr. Abhishek Verma made a statement that he had forged and planted the Fax in question at the instance of the petitioner in lieu of the promise that he would be rewarded as an informant once the Fax in question was seized. 9) Mr. Abhishek Verma was made an approver and was tendered pardon vide order dated 07.09.2001 by the Trial Court. The trial court further observed that in absence of the testimony of Mr. Ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mandeep Kaur, Chartered Accountant and relied upon by the CBI to charge the petitioner. Admittedly, no further information was sought by the Indian Authorities, and no such details were provided to the Swiss Bank Corporation as were asked for by the latter in the reply to the LR dated 27.06.2001. The reply to the LR, thus, suppresses more than it reveals. 16) On 30.10.2001 a SP s Report accompanied by a Draft Sanction Order and a list of documents and witnesses was submitted to the sanctioning authority vide reference No. 9582/3/Cr/1(E)/99-SIU-VIII for grant of sanction of prosecution. From the perusal of the file it is seen that the Reply to LR dated 27.06.2001 although listed at Sl. No. 41 of the list of documents sent along with the SP s Report dated 30.10.2001, is not itself annexed in the file. 17) The SP s report dated 30.10.2001 finds no mention of the Reply to the LR dated 27.06.2001 or the relevant Fax dated 13.01.1998. 18) Consequently, an order granting sanction was passed by the sanctioning authority on 21.06.2002 in terms of the draft sanction order submitted to it by the CBI along with the SP s Report on 30.10.2001. 19) The sanction order dated 21.06.2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Memorandum bearing reference No.014/ITX/016/280 dated 13.04.2015 also opined that the order granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner dated 21.06.2002 was not in accordance with the guidelines issued by the DoP T vide Circular dated 26.03.2015. 28) The PMO vide letter dated 19.02.2015 and 18.04.2015 directed the Department of Revenue to afford a personal hearing to the petitioner and decide his representations to the Department in light of the opinion of Ministry of Law dated 05.04.2011. 29) This Court also granted several opportunities to the official respondents to afford a personal hearing to the petitioner and render a decision on the latter s representations regarding the validity of order of sanction dated 21.06.2002 to the Department of Revenue. The said representation has been rejected by way of order dated 07.09.2015. 30) The annexures to the SP s report dated 30.10.2001 have never been produced before this Court and have been stated to be unavailable on record although the list of evidence annexed along with the SP s report dated 30.10.2001 has been produced. 33. Moreover, it is an established position of law that the court for its perusal and the submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on a review of the averments made in the petition this argument cannot be sustained. Merely because a question of fact is raised, the High Court will not be justified in requiring the party to seek relief by the somewhat lengthy, dilatory and expensive process by a civil suit against a public body. The questions of fact raised by the petition in this case are elementary. 35. Similarly in Gunwant Kaur vs. Municipal Corp, Bhatinda reported as (1969) 3 SCC 769 it was held: 14. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit-in-reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner s right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined. In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in ABL International Limited Anr. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation , reported as (2004) 3 SCC 553, held that where the dispute can be adjudicated upon by interpreting the meaning of the documentary evidence on record, the High Court can very well go into the question of facts and adjudicate the same. 38. In view of the afore-stated factual matrix, it emerges that there are no disputed questions of facts. The reply to the LR dated 27.06.2001 as well as the relevant Fax dated 13.01.19998 sent to Mr. Barjatya are conspicuous by their absence in the SP s Report dated 30.10.2001. It is not surprising, that the order granting sanction also does not allude to either of the afore- mentioned relevant documents, as it is a verbatim copy of the draft sanction order. The counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents produced the original files that were sent to the sanctioning authority for the perusal of this Court. It was noticed from the file that the file only contains a list of documents and the relevant documents are not annexed therewith. On a query from the court, the counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents conceded that the documents are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 IPC and Section 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of POCA. It is critical to note that the Special Judge returned no findings on the validity of sanction, despite having been directed by this Court to do so by way of order dated 21.01.2003. 43. Thereafter, the order dated 21.02.2007 of this court, was challenged by of Criminal Appeal No.353/2007 before the Supreme Court of India by the official respondents. While allowing the appeal the Supreme Court by way of order dated 15.03.2007 had directed the High Court to decide the issue of maintainability as well as the issue of validity of sanction on merits. 44. This issue is also no longer res-integra, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. C. Nagarajaswamy , reported as (2005) 8 SCC 370, held as follows:- Ordinarily, the question as to whether a proper sanction has been accorded for prosecution of the accused persons or not is a matter which should be dealt with at the stage of taking cognizance. But in a case of this nature where a question is raised as to whether the authority granting the sanction was competent therefore or not, at the stage of final arguments after trial, the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction (1) of Section 19 admits of no equivocation and operates as a complete and absolute bar to any court taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act against a public servant except with the previous sanction of the competent authority xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 8. In Yusofalli Mulla s case (supra), the Privy Council was examining whether failure to obtain sanction affected the competence of the Court to try the accused. The contention urged was that there was a distinction between a valid institution of a prosecution on the one hand and the competence of the Court to hear and determine the prosecution, on the other. Rejecting the contention that any such distinction existed, this Court observed: The next contention was that the failure to obtain a sanction at the most prevented the valid institution of a prosecution, but did not affect the competency of the Court to hear and determine a prosecution which in fact was brought before it. This suggested distinction between the validity of the prosecution and the competence of the Court was pressed strenuously by Mr. Page, but seems to rest on no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the matter prior to any step being taken to that which he may take if he is asked to sanction a prosecution which has in fact already been started. 10. So also the decision of this Court in Budha Mal vs. State of Delhi [Criminal Appeal No.17 of 1952 disposed of on 3/10/1952], this Court had clearly ruled that absence of a valid sanction affected the competence of the Court to try and punish the accused. This Court observed: We are satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge was right in the view he took. Section 403 CrPC applies to cases where the acquittal order has been made by a court of competent jurisdiction but it does not bar a retrial of the accused in cases where such an order has been made by a court which had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. It is quite apparent on this record that in the absence of a valid sanction the trial of the appellant in the first instance was by a Magistrate who had no jurisdiction to try him. Xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 15. The legal position regarding the importance of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption is thus much too clear to admit equivocation. The statute for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . From a conspectus of the decisions of the Supreme Court as cited above the legal position that emerges is that the question of validity of a sanction must be decided as soon as it is raised and cannot be postponed to a later stage of trial, as an invalid sanction goes to the very root of the jurisdiction of the court that has taken cognizance. Considering that the cognizance taken by the Special Judge, CBI would be rendered non-est in light of section 19(1) of POCA, the dispute on validity must be adjudicated at the earliest. The soliloquy of Macbeth finds relevance here: If it were done when tis done, then twere well. It were done quickly. -Shakespeare, Macbeth (Scene VII) 51. The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Mahesh G. Jain (supra) does not come to the aid of the official respondents as the Supreme Court has categorically observed that the application of mind of the sanctioning authority must be apparent on the face of the sanction order and it is for the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted. In the instant case, the sanction order dated 21.06.2002 does not show that the sanctioning authority had pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the directions of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 15.03.2007, I have gone through the relevant notings dated documents were shown to the sanctioning authority. A glaring irregularity is also noticed from these notings to the effect that the sanctioning authority who accorded sanction for prosecution was not the same as the authority, which 96ummarized96 the documents in the first instance. 57. The CBI Manual at para 22.16 stipulates that on completion of investigation, the entire record of the same must be sent to the sanctioning authority in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. M.M. Rajendran, reported as (1998) 9 SCC 268. 58. In M.M. Rajendran (supra), the Supreme Court held as below: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-7- 1995 passed by the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1993. Such appeal was preferred by the respondent Mr M.M. Rajendran against the judgment of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Madras dated 18-12-1992 passed in CC No. 1 of 1991 (Crime No. 3/90 - Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Police, Madras). The respondent was a Sub- Inspector of Police, Crimes a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court need not have made the finding on merits about the prosecution case. We make it clear that finding made by the courts on the merits of the case will stand expunged and will not be taken into consideration in future. In our view, the High Court should have passed the appropriate order by dropping the proceeding and not entering into the question of merits after it had come to the finding that the proceeding was not maintainable for want of sanction. It is, however, made clear that it will be open to the appellant- State of Tamil Nadu to proceed afresh against the respondent after obtaining necessary sanction if the State so desires. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (Emphasis supplied) 59. There is yet another issue that the paramount consideration for a valid sanction is due application of mind by the sanctioning authority, which has been 98ummarized by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat, reported as (1997) 7 SCC 622 in the following words: 19. Since the validity of Sanction depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority considered the relevant material placed before it and after a consideration of all the circumstances of the case it sanctioned the prosecution. Emphasis Supplied. 61. In State of Karnataka vs. Ameerjan, reported as 2007 (11) SCC 273 , where sanction was given solely on the basis of the IG report and the material that was collected during investigation was not placed before the sanctioning authority, the Supreme Court has held that the order of the High Court holding that the sanction was illegal was proper. It was observed as follows: 9. We agree that an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner. But, it is also well settled that the purpose for which an order of sanction is required to be passed should always be borne in mind. Ordinarily, the sanctioning authority is the best person to judge as to whether the public servant concerned should receive the protection under the Act by refusing to accord sanction for his prosecution or not. 10. For the aforementioned purpose, indisputably, application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority is imperative. The order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material. 16.5 In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law. 63. Similarly in the case of P.L. Tatwal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , reported as (2014) 11 SCC 431 it was held as follows: 12. The grant of sanction is only an administrative function. It is intended to protect public servants against frivolous and vexatious litigation. It also ensures that a dishonest officer is brought before law and is tried in accordance with law. Thus, it is a serious exercise of power by the competent authority. It has to be apprised of all the relevant materials, and on such materials, the authority has to take a conscious decision as to whether the facts would reveal the commission of an offence under the relevant provisions. No doubt, an elaborate discussion in that regard in the order is not necessary. But decision-maki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways; either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show that the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. It is well settled that any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest difficult (sic-defect) in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. In the instant case no evidence has been led either primary or secondary to prove as to what were the contents of the note mentioned in Exhibit P-16 which was placed before the Sanctioning Authority. The evidence of P.W. 2 or P.W. 7 is wholly irrelevant because they were not in a position to say as to what were the contents of the note which formed the subject-matter of the sanction by the Standing Committee of the Corporation. The note referred to above was the only primary evidence for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction order must expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it, and after considering the circumstances in the case against the public servant, has granted sanction. f) If the application of mind by the sanctioning authority is not apparent from the sanction order itself then the burden of proving that the entire relevant record was placed before the sanctioning authority rests on the prosecution. The prosecution must establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire record of investigation was placed before the sanctioning authority. 70. In the present case, the respondents have despairingly failed to discharge the onus of proving that the sanction order dated 21.06.2002 is valid and that all the relevant documents were sent to the sanctioning authority for its perusal. None of the documents that go to demonstrate the innocence of the petitioner viz. the reply to the LR dated 27.06.2001 and the relevant Fax dated 13.01.1998 were shown to have been available to the sanctioning authority. These documents clearly and unequivocally establish that the Fax in question was in fact sent by the Swiss Bank Corporation, howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 is invalid. 74. The only issue raised is Criminal Revision Petition No.338/2014 is whether the sanction order dated 26.11.2002 is invalid on account of the circumstance of failure to place the relevant documents on record as well as on account of non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority while granting the subject sanction. 75. In relation to this issue the following relevant facts may be set forth: (1) The case bearing RC No. SI9 E0006 1999 was registered against the petitioner on 07.12.1999 u/s 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) POCA and investigations were taken up against the petitioner by the CBI. (2) The CBI sent a SP's Report along with a cover letter and a list of documents (oral and documentary), on 24.05.2002. The cover letter stated that on the pretext that the relied upon documents are very large in quantity, the said documents were not enclosed with the SP's Report. (3) The letter of the Joint Secretary (Revenue) to the Director General (Income Tax) dated 12.05.2004, specifically alluded to the fact that the documents relied upon by the CBI were not sent to the sanctioning authority. (4) In furtherance thereof, the Director General (Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igation were placed before the sanctioning authority before it granted the sanction for prosecution dated 26.11.2002. (10) The CVC vide letter dated 13.04.2015, also observed that the sanction order dated 26.11.2002 was not in conformity of the guideline provided in the CBI Manual and reiterated by the DoP T in Circular dated 26.03.2015. 76. In view of the afore-stated facts, it becomes crystal clear that the entire record of investigation including documents, and statements of witnesses under sections 161 and 164 of the Code, as well as the case diaries were not placed before the sanctioning authority in order for it to apply its mind before grant of sanction order dated 26.11.2002 and the said sanction order was passed only on the basis of SP s report dated 24.05.2002. In the first instance itself, the covering letter to the SP's Report dated 24.05.2002 is testament to the fact that the record of investigation in RC No.SI9 E0006 1999 was not sent to the sanctioning authority on the pretext that the investigation was very large in quantity. Further, the letter dated 12.05.2004 of the Joint Secretary (Revenue) to the Director General (Income Tax) and the letter dated 17.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invalid, void ab-initio and non-est. Consequently, the order of the Special Judge (CBI) dated 24.05.2014, impugned herein, is set aside and quashed. 81. A proper investigation into crime is one of the essentials of the criminal justice system and an integral facet of rule of law. The investigation by the police under the Code has to be fair, impartial and uninfluenced by external influences. Where investigation into crime is handled by the CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the DSPE Act ), the same principles apply and the CBI as a premier investigating agency is supposed to discharge its responsibility with competence, promptness, fairness, uninfluenced and unhindered by external influences. (Reference: Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Principal Secretary , reported as (2014) 2 SCC 532). 82. Reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Sirajuddin vs. State of Madras reported as 1970 SCC (CRI) 240 wherein it was observed as under:- 17. Before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanour or misconduct of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of India and Ors., reported as AIR 1979 SC 1628 that an executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged. 87. In Adesh Kumar Gupta (supra) this Court further observed in para 20 of the report that It requires no reiteration that observance of due process of law is fundamental in the effective functioning of the executive machinery. The Supreme Court, since 1950, in the celebrated decision in A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras, reported as AIR 1950 SC 27 has emphasized and re-emphasized the importance of following due process. The CBI is a premier investigating agency professing high standards of professional integrity and must be held strictly to those standards. 88. In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Another vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported as (2004) 4 SCC 158 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered how justice itself can become a victim if the investigation is not fair. The Court in paragraph 18 of the report expressed thus:- 18. ..... When the investigating agency helps the accused, the witnesses are threatened to depose falsely and the prosecutor acts in a manner as if he was def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LR dated 27.06.2001, the Swiss Bank Corporation did not confirm the authenticity of the above-mentioned letter. The CBI did not further inquire into the same. Such a procedure of investigation is unheard of and gives rise to a reasonable suspicion with respect to the intentions of the investigating agency. d) The conduct of the CBI brings to mind a paraphrase of the often quoted aphorism by George Orwell: All [men] are equal, but some are more equal than the others. -George Orwell, Animal Farm e) The Swiss Bank Corporation in its Reply to the LR dated 27.06.2001 had asked for further details of Mr. Barjatya and other persons named in the LR, like date of birth, address, etc. to verify if they operate any account in the former bank. That was not done for reasons best known to the official respondents. The reply to the LR dated 27.06.2001 also did not confirm about the genuineness of the letter obtained by Mr. Mandeep Kapur, Chartered Accountant of Mr. Barjatya from Mr. Eric Huggenberger, attorney of the Swiss Bank Corporation. The CBI made no further inquiries in relation to any account of Mr. Barjatya in the Swiss Bank Corporation, nor did it confirm the genuinene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the petitioner in R.C. No.SI8 E 00011999 founders is denuded and without any substance whatsoever. 92. A couplet by Kaif Bhopali is apposite: Janab-e- kaif yeh Dilli hai 'Mir' o 'Ghalib' ki, Yahan Kisi Ki Taraf-dariyan Nahin Chaltin. -Kaif Bhopali 93. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed. No costs. 94. The orders granting sanction dated 21.06.2002 and 26.11.2002 passed by the Competent Authority, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India; the Charge Sheet in RC No.SI8 E0001 1999 submitted by the CBI in the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, Delhi dated 28.06.2002; the order on charge dated 17.12.2005 in R.C. No.SI8 E0001 1999 in CC No.26 of 2002 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Delhi; and the order of the Special Judge, CBI dated 24.05.2014 in RC No. SI9 E0006 1999 in CC No. 55/02 are hereby set aside and quashed. All the pending applications also stand disposed of. 95. The original records have been perused and the same be sealed and returned to the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. 96. The petitioner has suffered great prejudice since 1998 on account of the prolonged litigation betwee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
