W.P. (CRL) 1880/2013 & Crl. M.A. Nos. 17140-41/2013. Case: Harvinder Singh Vs CBI. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P. (CRL) 1880/2013 & Crl. M.A. Nos. 17140-41/2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Ravi P. Shukla, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Bakul Jain, Proxy Counsel for Mr. P.K. Sharma, SC for CBI |
| Judges | Hima Kohli, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 482; Constitution of India - Articles 226, 227 |
| Judgement Date | November 13, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
Hima Kohli, J.
-
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying inter alia for setting aside the order on charge dated 24.1.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, (PC Act-CBI), Delhi in C.C. No. 19/2008 entitled CBI vs. Brij Mohan Sethi etc. As the order impugned by the petitioner is dated 24.1.2012, upon a query posed to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the stage of proceedings, the Court is informed that the case is at the stage of recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
-
Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner (accused No. 7) was working as a Statistical Investigator/Dealing Assistant in the office of the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies and the only role attributed to him is of submitting a false and incorrect note dated 21.6.1999 to the effect that the documents submitted by New Anamika Cooperative Group Housing Society in respect of the resignation of four members were false and that the petitioner had simply verified the said documents and recommended approval of the final list of 75 members of the Society for further transmission to the DDA for allotment of land. He further states that as the petitioner's role was limited to verification of the signatures of four members that were submitted by the Society, which he did by comparing the photocopies of the resignation letters of the four members placed on record with the originals that had been submitted by the Society, the CBI has erred in naming him as an accused and the Special Judge, CBI did not have any material before him to direct framing of charge against the petitioner.
-
As per the prosecution version, the petitioner had checked all the records relating to the resignations of some members of the Society in question and he had observed that the same were found to be in order and that the four resignations in question had been verified as test check cases and were found to be correct, whereas the correct position that had emerged during the investigation was that out of the four resignations of the members on record, as many as three resignations that had been duly verified by the petitioner, were found to be bogus. Based on the aforesaid report submitted by the petitioner (accused No. 7), the Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Societies (accused No. 1) had proceeded to dishonestly recommend the revival of the Society in question even when the revival...
To continue reading
Request your trial