High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Delhi Special Police Establishment v. K.C.Talwar - CRM-322-2000  RD-P&H 1316 (7 February 2007)
Crl. Revision No. 322 of 2000.
Date of Decision: February 08, 2007.
Delhi Special Police Establishment
Mr. Rajan Gupta, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.
Mr. K.S.Nalwa, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL)
A case RC-45 dated 4.9.1996, under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420 IPC and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation in its Police Station at Chandigarh against Mohinder Singh and Dharam Singh. During the course of investigation, the respondent (K.C.Talwar) was also implicated and was added as accused No.3.
The Central Bureau of Investigation, after its investigation, presented a challan. However, on consideration thereof, learned Special Judge, Ambala, discharged the respondent (K.C.Talwar) vide his order dated 21.10.1998, a copy of which has also been placed on record.
It appears that thereafter, the CBI filed supplementary challan against the respondent on 26.3.1999. Learned Special Judge, Ambala, however, did not find any prima facie case against the respondent and again discharged him vide the impugned order dated 3.12.1999., Aggrieved, the CBI has approached this Court.
During the pendency of this revision petition, learned Special Judge, Ambala, vide his judgment dated 22.3.2002, has acquitted the main accused, namely, Mohinder Singh and Dharam Singh against whom the FIR was registered and charges were framed.
A perusal of the afore-said judgment indicates that most of the prosecution witnesses, i.e., more than 20, have resiled and, thus, no incriminating material could be brought against the main accused.
There appears to be some substance in the contention of learned counsel representing the CBI that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge primarily by misreading the previous order dated 21.10.1998 whereby the respondent (K.C.Talwar) was in fact not discharged, rather it was a case of misjoinder of charges. However, having regard to the fact that the CBI has failed to establish the guilt of the main accused, namely, Mohinder Singh and Dharam Singh, there is hardly anything which can sustain against the respondent (K.C.Talwar), who, despite his discharge by the learned Special Judge twice, is being dragged in this futile exercise since the year 2000.
Consequently, I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is dismissed.
February 08, 2007. ( SURYA KANT )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.