2002 (6) TMI 609 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Setting aside the order dated 18.4.2002 of the learned Special Judge.
2. Revocation of cognizance taken and process issued.
3. Rejection of the charge-sheet filed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Setting Aside the Order Dated 18.4.2002:
The petitioner, one of the accused in Criminal Case No. 39/99, sought to set aside the order dated 18.4.2002 by the learned Special Judge. The petitioner argued that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not comply with the Supreme Court's directives in Vineet Narain's case, particularly paragraph 58, sub-para 3, which mandates that the CBI report to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) about cases taken up for investigation, progress of investigations, and cases in which charge-sheets are filed. The petitioner contended that the CBI's failure to report the second charge-sheet to the CVC rendered the charge-sheet invalid.

2. Revocation of Cognizance Taken and Process Issued:
The petitioner argued that the cognizance taken and the process issued by the learned Special Judge should be revoked because the CBI did not adhere to the Supreme Court's directives. The petitioner emphasized that the directions in Vineet Narain's case were intended to ensure the independence and integrity of the investigation process, preventing both the escape of the guilty and the harassment of the innocent. The petitioner highlighted that the CVC was not informed about the filing of the second charge-sheet, which violated the Supreme Court's directives.

3. Rejection of the Charge-Sheet Filed:
The petitioner sought the rejection of the charge-sheet filed by the CBI, arguing that it was filed dishonestly, with malice, and without material on record. The petitioner contended that the CBI's affidavit admitted that it did not report the supplementary charge-sheet to the CVC, which was a violation of the Supreme Court's directives. The petitioner argued that the failure to comply with these directives rendered the charge-sheet illegal and void. The petitioner further submitted that the CVC's affidavit admitted that it had no role in the filing of the charge-sheet, and the CBI's affidavit admitted that the power of superintendence over the CBI had not been conferred upon the CVC.

Analysis and Conclusion:
The court, after considering the arguments, concluded that the CBI did not comply with the Supreme Court's directives in Vineet Narain's case, particularly the requirement to report to the CVC. The court emphasized that the directions in paragraph 58 of the Vineet Narain judgment were law and must be strictly complied with. The court held that the CBI was bound to place the final results of its investigation before the CVC for review before filing a charge-sheet. The court found that the CBI had bypassed the CVC and filed the charge-sheet directly before the learned Special Judge, which was a violation of the Supreme Court's directives. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the cognizance taken by the learned Special Judge, and all consequential proceedings. The court granted the prosecution the liberty to file a fresh charge-sheet after following the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain's case.

Bail Conditions:
The court noted that the petitioner was admitted to bail, and the bail conditions imposed by the Supreme Court would remain intact despite the quashing of the proceedings.