Delhi High Court - Orders
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Mahesh Kumar on 10 November, 2021
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 335/2021
CRL.M.A. 1734/2021 (for Stay)
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG with Mr.
Anupam S. Sharma, SPP - CBI with
Ms. Sairica Raju, Mr. A Venkatesh,
Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, Mr.
Shaurya R Rai, Ms. Aarushi Singh,
Mr. Anshuman Singh, Ms. Zeal Shah,
Mr. Prakash Airan, Ms. Harpreet
Kalsi, Advocates.
versus
MAHESH KUMAR ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Arshdeep Singh, Adv. for
R-1.
Mr. Tushar Mehta, SGI, Mr. Vinod
Diwakar, CGSC, Mr. B.N. Dubey,
Advs. for R-2/DOT/UOI.
Mr. Sidharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Akshay Ringe, Adv. for
intervenor/ Rahul Yadav.
Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Mr.
Harsh Srivastva, Mr. Ayush
Aggarwal, Advs. for intervenor/
Narayan Rao Manjunath.
Mr. Ankur Chawla, Advs. for
remaining 7 accused.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 10.11.2021 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 335/2021 Page 1 ofSigned Digitally 6 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:11.11.2021 21:07:08
The hearing has been conducted through Physical Mode. CRL.M.A. 11076/2021 (for impleadment by Rahul Yadav) CRL.M.A. 11078/2021 (for impleadment by Narayan Rao Manjunath)
1. By these two applications Rahul Yadav and Narayan Rao Manjunath seek intervention in CRL.M.C. 335/2021.
2. Vide CRL.M.C. 335/2021 CBI has challenged the order dated 3rd March, 2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, PC Act on an application filed by the respondent Mahesh Kumar. Vide the impugned order dated 3rd March, 2020 the learned Special Judge allowed the application seeking directions to CBI to place on record, the entire record of Review Committee as contemplated under Rule 419(A)(17) of the Telegraph Rules w.r.t. the directions/orders bearing No. 14/3/97-CBI of different dates before the Court prior to taking cognizance of the alleged evidence collected on the strength of directions/ orders bearing No. 14/3/97-CBI of different dates.
3. Mahesh Kumar and the two applicants Rahul Yadav and Narayan Rao Manjunath are undergoing trial in RC 2172013A0004 for offences punishable under Sections 120-B IPC read with Section 7, 8 & 12 of PC Act, 1988.
4. The facts in the charge-sheet in nutshell are that an information was received against Mahesh Kumar, Member (Staff) Railway Board and 7 other private persons including Narayan Rao Manjunath, Managing Director of M/s. GG Tronics India Pvt. Ltd., Sandeep Goyal, Vijay Singla, Ajay Garg, Rahul Yadav, Samir Sandhir and Sushil Daga. Mahesh Kumar who is a public servant was in regular touch with private person Narayan Rao Manjunath and was trying to get himself appointed as Member (Electrical), Railway Board by illegal and wrongful means through the further contacts Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 335/2021 Page 2 ofSigned Digitally 6 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:11.11.2021 21:07:08 of Narayan Rao Manjunath. It is alleged that Manjunath and Mahesh Kumar were in contact with Sandeep Goyal who assured to get the work done through his contact with a private person Vijay Singla who was nephew of the then Railway Minister by using his personal influence and Sandeep Goyal made further contacts with Vijay Singla and Ajay Garg. It is stated that a demand of illegal gratification was made for this purpose from Mahesh Kumar through Narayan Rao Manjunath, for which cash amount was transacted and on a trap being laid, money was recovered.
5. One of the major evidence with the CBI in the charge-sheet is the interception of the mobile phones of the accused persons by the Special Unit of CBI with prior and due permission of competent authority as per the provisions of law. The original CDs of these conversations and their transcription along with certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act were filed as part of the charge-sheet. Further requisite order of Home Ministry approving surveillance of the mobile numbers of the 8 accused named above were also placed along with the charge-sheet. Charges for offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 7, 8 and 12 of PC Act have been framed against the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent informs that the playing of the CDs has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14 th August, 2017. Order dated 14th August, 2017 in SLP (CRL) Nos. 5482- 5483/ 2017 reads as under:
"Issue notice returnable in four weeks.
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to serve the Respondent-CBI through Central Agency.
Until further orders, the trial Court shall not permit the CDs in Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 335/2021 Page 3 ofSigned Digitally 6 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:11.11.2021 21:07:08 question to be introduced in evidence. The recording of rest of the evidence may go on.
We also direct that there shall be no final judgment by the trial court till the decision of these special leave applications."
7. During the pendency of the trial respondent No.1/ Mahesh Kumar one of the accused filed an application seeking directions for production of orders/directions of Review Committee w.r.t. surveillance orders with the following prayers:
"a. Eschewing the entire direction(s)/order(s) bearing No. 14/3/97-CBI of different dates and the material collected on the strength thereof in view of Rule 419(A)(17) of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
b. The CBI/Prosecuting Agency be directed to place the entire record of the Review Committee, as contemplated under Rule 419(A)(17) w.r.t. the direction(s)/order(s) bearing No. 14/3/97-CBI of different dates before this Hon'ble Court, prior to taking any cognizance of the alleged evidence collected on the strength of the direction(s)/order(s) bearing No. 14/3/97- CBI of different dates.
c. Any other order(s) or further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may be passed in the interest of justice."
8. The issue today before this Court is whether co-accused Rahul Yadav and Narayan Rao Manjunath are affected by the outcome of the present petition and thus their applications seeking impleadment are required to be allowed or not.
9. Objecting to the impleadment of the two co-accused Rahul Yadav and Narayan Rao Manjunath, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that the applications filed by the two applicants raise legal pleas and there is no Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 335/2021 Page 4 ofSigned Digitally 6 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:11.11.2021 21:07:08 factual substratum mentioned in the application. It is further stated that the issue being a mixed question of law and fact. It is contended that since the two applicants had not filed any application with a similar prayer before the learned Special Judge, they cannot be permitted to intervene. In the alternative, learned Additional Solicitor General also contends that in case the two applicants are permitted to be impleaded on the ground that they may be prejudiced by the outcome of the order that may be passed in this petition, the other co-accused also have a right to be heard and notice should be given to them as well.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties on impleadment. Vide the impugned order, the learned Special Judge held that the accused is entitled to seek directions to place the record of the Review Committee as contemplated under Rule 419(A)(17) w.r.t. the directions/ orders bearing No. 14/3/97-CBI before the Court in order to show the directions/ orders were valid and duly confirmed by the Review Committee within the time stipulated and accordingly issued directions to the CBI to place on record the entire record of Review Committee as contemplated under Rule 419(A)(17) w.r.t. the directions/orders bearing No.14/3/97-CBI of different dates
11. As noted above, in the charge-sheet the CBI has relied on the intercepted conversations of 8 accused and since CBI has invoked Section 120-B IPC, any order on the same may adversely affect the co-accused as well. Hence, it would be appropriate to hear the other co-accused namely Rahul Yadav and Narayan Rao Manjunath as well and the applications filed by them are required to be allowed.
12. In the alternative learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 335/2021 Page 5 ofSigned Digitally 6 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:11.11.2021 21:07:08 in case the order adversely affects the co-accused, the other co-accused also needs to be heard.
13. Mr. Ankur Chawla, Advocate who appears on behalf of the remaining 7 accused states that he be also permitted to intervene and he will file the vakalatnama on behalf of the remaining accused within one week.
14. Considering the fact that the documents sought by the learned Trial Court may ultimately have bearing including on the admissibility of the intercepted conversation besides their reliability and the charges framed against the accused being of conspiracy, the same may prejudice the rights of the other accused, besides the respondent, this Court in the interest of justice permits all the accused besides Mahesh Kumar to intervene and be impleaded as respondents.
15. Applications are disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 335/2021 & CRL.M.A. 1734/2021 (for Stay)
1. CBI will file the amended memo of parties impleading all the accused as respondents within two weeks.
2. List the petition for hearing on 21st January, 2022.
3. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
NOVEMBER 10, 2021 /'ga' Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 335/2021 Page 6 ofSigned Digitally 6 By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:11.11.2021 21:07:08