Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 439 (MP)

Ramnaresh Prasad v. State of M. P.

2000-04-27

S.S.SARAF

body2000
ORDER S.S. Saraf, J. 1. This is a criminal revision under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 25-11-99 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Jabalpur in Special Case No. 5/99 (State v. Ramnaresh Prasad) whereby the application filed by the petitioner that the learned Judge Shri R.S. Sharma recuses himself from trying the case, has been rejected. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are these :-- The petitioner is facing a trial for offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the 'Act') in the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Jabalpur. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner has been found in possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income. It is also alleged that under Section 17 of the Act, the learned Special Judge, Shri R.S. Sharma granted permission to Shri B.K. Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI, Jabalpur to investigate the case against the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application praying that the learned Special Judge, Shri R.S. Sharma recuses himself from trying the case as he has granted permission to the Subordinate Police Officer to investigate the case against the petitioner under Section 17 of the Act. The learned Judge by the impugned order dated 25-11-1999 rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the present petition has been filed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. The learned Judge has been given jurisdiction to grant permission to investigate the case for offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act against the delinquent person. The contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that since the learned Judge granted such permission, he has participated in the investigation and therefore he himself should not try the case against the petitioner. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner also cited an example that since the permission has been granted by the learned Special Judge, he could be called as a witness in the case and therefore it is not in the interest of justice to try the case himself. 5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner also cited an example that since the permission has been granted by the learned Special Judge, he could be called as a witness in the case and therefore it is not in the interest of justice to try the case himself. 5. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the above contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, I am afraid this contention cannot be accepted. Merely because the learned Judge granted permission to investigate the case against the petitioner, the former does not become one of the investigators in the case. Evidently, the investigation of the case was conducted by the Police Officer who was granted permission by the learned Judge. The learned Judge did not take any part in the investigation. He simply permitted the investigation by the Police Officer and that too since he has jurisdiction to grant such permission. For example, the search warrant is also issued by the trial Judge or Magistrate but merely because a search warrant has been issued by a learned trial Judge or Magistrate, he does not become the part of the investigating agency. Similarly, merely because a Judge grants permission to investigate a case, he does not become part of the investigating agency. 6. For reasons stated above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Jabalpur. The revision, thus, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. The stay granted by this Court stands revoked automatically.