Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 389 (PNJ)

J. P. Ranga v. Central Bureau of Investigation

2012-03-01

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated two revision petitions, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition, particularly when the 2nd case was ordered to be heard with the 1st case, vide order dated 23.12.2011. However, the relevant facts, which need a necessary mention for deciding the petitions, have been extracted from CRR No.1179 of 2010 titled as “J.P.Ranga Vs. CBI” (1st case) in subsequent portion of this judgment for ready reference in this context. 2. Tersenessly, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions and emanating from the record, are that a criminal case was registered against petitioner J.P.Ranga son of Sadhu Ram and his six others co-accused, by means of FIR, bearing Crime No.34 dated 8.8.2002 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 409 IPC and 13(1)(c) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short “the CBI”). During the course of investigation, the CBI found all the accused (except the petitioner) innocent, did not challan them and final police report in terms of Section 173 Cr.PC was submitted only against the petitioner in the court. 3. Having completed all the codal formalities, the petitioner was accordingly charge sheeted for the indicated offences and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution/CBI by the Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh. After examining all the material witnesses, the CBI closed its evidence and the case was listed for defence evidence. Meanwhile, the petitioner moved an application (Annexure P3) under section 319 Cr.PC for summoning the remaining accused to face trial alongwith him on the ground of their involvement in the crime as per the allegations of the FIR. The prayer of the petitioner was refuted by the CBI on the ground that the application has been mala fidely filed in order to delay the disposal of already matured case. The application was dismissed by the Special Judge, vide impugned order dated 2.3.2010. 4. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner preferred the present revision petitions, challenging the impugned orders, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.PC. 5. The application was dismissed by the Special Judge, vide impugned order dated 2.3.2010. 4. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner preferred the present revision petitions, challenging the impugned orders, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.PC. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petitions in this context. 6. As is evident from the record, that a criminal case was registered against the accused, vide FIR (Annexure P1) on 8.8.2002. During the course of investigation, all the accused (except the petitioner) were found innocent, they were not challaned, departmental proceedings were recommended against them by the CBI. The final police report was submitted only against the petitioner. Thereafter, he was accordingly charge sheeted for the indicated offences and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution/CBI by the Special Judge. After examining all the material witnesses, the CBI closed its evidence and the case was listed for defence evidence. In the meantime, the petitioner moved an application (Annexure P3) under section 319 Cr.PC for summoning the remaining accused to face trial alongwith him on the ground of their involvement in the crime as per the allegations contained in the FIR. The application was dismissed by the Special Judge, by way of impugned order dated 2.3.2010. 7. As is clear from the impugned order that the main grounds, which appear to have been weighed with the Special Judge, to negate the prayer of the petitioner, were that (i) he is only relying upon the defence evidence of departmental proceedings to seek summoning of additional accused; (ii) negligence on the part of the remaining accused in performance of the duties cannot constitute a criminal offence, whereas the same may be a valid ground for awarding the departmental punishment; (iii) there is no evidence to summon them and (iv) if the application of the accused under section 319 Cr.PC is allowed at the stage of defence evidence, it will re-open the de-novo trial, which is not legally permissible. To me, the trial Judge considered the matter in the right perspective and correctly dismissed the application (Annexure P3) filed by the main accused. 8. To me, the trial Judge considered the matter in the right perspective and correctly dismissed the application (Annexure P3) filed by the main accused. 8. Moreover, it is now well settled proposition of law that, the Court while deciding, whether to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.PC, must address itself about the other constraints imposed by the first limb of sub-section (4), that proceedings in respect of newly added persons shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-examined. The whole proceedings must be recommenced from the beginning of the trial, summon the witnesses once again and examine & cross-examine them, in order to reach the stage where it had reached earlier. If the main witnesses have already been examined, then the Court must seriously consider whether the objects sought to be achieved by such exercise are worth wasting the whole labour already undertaken. Unless the Court is hopeful that there is a reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly added accused ending in conviction of the main concerned offence. The trial Court is not always legally required to summon such accused in a routine manner, as and when any such application under section 319 Cr.PC, is made. There is no compelling duty on Court to proceed against other persons at this belated stage, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another 2000(3) SCC 262. The same view was reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases Sarabjit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr. 2009(16) SCC 46 and Brindaban Das and others v. State of West Bengal, [2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 249] : (2009) 3 SCC 329. 9. Therefore, the contrary submissions of counsel for the petitioners “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances as the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 10. Meaning thereby, the Special Judge has recorded the cogent grounds and rightly negatived the claim of petitioners. Such impugned orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court in the exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction, unless and until, the same are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. 10. Meaning thereby, the Special Judge has recorded the cogent grounds and rightly negatived the claim of petitioners. Such impugned orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court in the exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction, unless and until, the same are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned orders deserve to be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main cases, as there is no merit, therefore, the present petitions are hereby dismissed as such. 13. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the course of trial of the main cases, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petitions in this relevant direction. Since these cases are old, so, the Special Judge is directed to take effective steps for their expeditious disposal. ---------0.B.S.0------------