Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 447 (HP)

AJIT SINGH RANA v. UNION OF INDIA

2013-05-20

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. FIR No.RCSML 2009/A0007 of 2009, dated 24.12.2009 was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the CBI) against certain officials of the National Council for Teacher Education. 2. ALLEGEDLY, at some stage, petitioner Dr. Ajit Singh Rana handled the matter regarding issuance of No Objection Certificate and letter of permission in favour of Awasthi Education Society, Shyam Nagar Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. After investigation, challan was present in the Court for trial. Significantly, police did not attribute any overt act of omission or commission against the present petitioner. 3. HOWEVER, in terms of impugned order dated 3.9.2012 (Annexure P-9), the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla issued summons also against the present petitioner alongwith the other accused persons. 4. SIGNIFICANTLY, in the body of the said order, there is no reference of any act overt against the petitioner. It is only in the penultimate para of the order, petitioner's name figures. Even here, CBI has filed its affidavit, clearly admitting "that on the basis of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed U/S 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against Smt Krishna Awasthi w/o Late Sh Rajnish Awasthi, Chairperson of Awasthi Educational Society, Shyam Nagar, Dharamshala, Distt Kangra (HP), Sh Gopal Rana s/o Sh Kanwal Singh r/o VPO Khera Kalan, Delhi-82 and Dr. Nirmala Nuwal w/o Sh S.N. Nuwal r/o H.NO.487, Ashray Anasagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan, both Members of the Inspection Team in the Ld Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judicial Magistrate, Shimla (HP) on 28.12.2010. During investigation, sufficient evidence could not be gathered against other accused persons namely Anil Kumar Surender Singh Rana, Dr. Ajit Singh Rana and Chetan Kumar Mishra and their names have been recommended to the concerned department for initiating Major (RDA penalty) against them." 5. IN view of the undisputed position, it is also seen that No Objection Certificate/letter of permission was issued on 24.9.2008, which was much after petitioner had demitted office as Regional Director (Northern Region), National Council for Teacher Education. Petitioner had only constituted a committee for inspecting the premises of the applicant. He had no occasion to exercise any influence over its Members. He even objected to this report and never approved the same or granted approval for any sanction/permission. Trial Court record also does not record anything incriminating against the petitioner. It is a case of no evidence. Petitioner had only constituted a committee for inspecting the premises of the applicant. He had no occasion to exercise any influence over its Members. He even objected to this report and never approved the same or granted approval for any sanction/permission. Trial Court record also does not record anything incriminating against the petitioner. It is a case of no evidence. 6. IN the impugned order, there is no specific discussion with regard to the material against the petitioner. The observation with regard to the petitioner's guilt/complicity is in the penultimate paragraph of the order, without any specific discussion. CBI has taken a fair stand and not opposed the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon Sarabjit Singh and another versus State of Punjab and another, (2009) 16 SCC 46 . 7. CONTINUANCE of the proceedings against the petitioner would actually result into abuse of law and travesty of justice. 8. AS such, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.9.2012 (Annexure P-9), only to the effect of summoning the present petitioner, is quashed and set aside. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Record be immediately sent back for trial of remaining accused persons.