CBI v. Rambhu Kumar Raj & ORS

$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CBI ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Sanjeev Bhandani, Spl. PP for CBI.

versus RAMBHU KUMAR RAJ & ORS ..... Respondents Through:

None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 19.01.2016 Crl.Rev.P. No.752/2014 1.

The present Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner/CBI impugning the order dated 05.03.2014 whereby learned Special Judge had directed the Investigating Officer to obtain sanction for prosecution of Rohit Bhatia.

2.

I have heard learned Special PP for CBI and carefully gone through the record.

3.

On behalf of CBI, Sh.Sanjeev Bhandari, learned Special PP has submitted that so far as direction given by learned Special Judge to the effect that further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. be carried out, CBI has no grievance to that extent. The order passed by learned Special Judge directing the CBI to obtain sanction for prosecution of Rohit Bhatia from the competent authority, being without jurisdiction needs to set aside by this

Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Learned Special PP for CBI has relied upon R.N.Chatterji vs. Havildar Kuer Singh 1970(1) SCC 496, Abhinandan Jha vs. Dinesh Mishra AIR 1968 SC 117, Hemant Dhasmana vs. CBI & Anr. (2001) 7 SCC 536, Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat Crl.A. No.502/1993 decided on 03.09.1997 in support of his contentions.

4.

I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner/CBI.

5.

The issue whether a Special Judge can issue direction to obtain sanction for prosecution of an accused, has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in numerous decisions. In the case Vasant Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2012 (1) SCC (Cri) 1007 the Supreme Court reiterated the legal position on this subject as under :- '19. The instant matter is one such example and is one step ahead wherein the Special Judge was confronted with yet another legal impediment of lack of sanction for prosecution giving rise to a peculiar situation when he noticed and recorded that he could not proceed in the matter under the Prevention of Corruption Act without sanction for prosecution, but in spite of this he directed to obtain sanction, ordered for reinvestigation and consequently refused to accept closure report.

20. Since the Special Judge in the instant matter refused to accept the closure report dated 18.05.2004 without any enquiry or reason why he refused to accept it which was submitted by the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Office, Jabalpur after reinvestigation for which reasons had been assigned and there was also lack of sanction for prosecution against the Appellant which was necessary for launching prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, we deem it just and appropriate to hold that the Special Judge clearly committed

error of jurisdiction by directing reinvestigation of the matter practically for the third time in spite of his noticing that sanction for prosecution was also lacking, apart from the fact that the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Office, after reinvestigation had given its report why the matter was not fit to be proceeded with.

21. We are therefore of the considered view that the Special Judge in the wake of all these legal flaws as also the fact that the Special Judge under the circumstance was not competent to proceed in the matter without sanction for prosecution, could not have ordered for reinvestigation of the case for the third time by refusing to accept closure report dated 18.05.2004. This amounts to sheer abuse of the process of law resulting into vexatious proceeding and harassment of the Appellant for more than 10 years without discussing any reason why he disagreed with the report of the Lokayukta and consequently the closure report which would have emerged if the Special Judge had carefully proceeded in accordance with the procedure enumerated for initiation of proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure.'

6.

The learned Special Judge, CBI was within its power to order further investigation but so far as the direction to the Investigating Officer to obtain sanction from the competent authority is concerned, the same could not have been given by the learned Special Judge as it has the effect of acting mechanically in compliance of directions of Special Judge thereby taking away the discretion vested in the competent authority to apply its mind to the material placed before it for considering the grant of sanction to prosecute the offenders.

7.

In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 05.03.2014 to the extent that it has directed the Investigating Officer to obtain sanction for prosecution of Rohit Bhatia from the competent authority, is set aside.

8.

The revision petition stands allowed in above terms. As prayed, copy of the order be given dasti to learned counsel for the petitioner/CBI.

Crl.M.A. No.19140/2014 (Stay) Dismissed as infructuous.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

JANUARY 19, 2016 'st'