Delhi District Court
Rama Jain vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 10 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH BHATT, ASJ06 (CENTRAL)/ TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No.:20/15
Unique ID no.:02401R0074912015
1. Rama Jain
W/o Late L.K. Jain
R/o J51/W15, Sainik Farm,
New Delhi
2. Rajeev Gupta
S/o H.C. Gupta
R/o A10, (2nd Floor), Gali no. 5,
Shashi Garden, Mayur Vihar,
PhaseI, Delhi ..........Petitioners
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation ..........Respondent
RC no. SID/2003/E002
PS SIUXII/CBI/ND
Date of Institution : 10/02/2015
Date on which order was reserved : 21/03/2015
Date of Decision : 10/04/2015
O R D E R:
1. This is a revision petition U/s 397 Cr. PC against order dated 14/11/2014 whereby application for discharge of the petitioners has been dismissed and notice for CR no.:20/15 Page 1/4 offence U/s 120B IPC r/w 25(2) & 14(3) of AAT Act, 1972 has been framed against them.
2. Present revision has been filed mainly on the ground that as per the prosecution, reliable information was received that petitioners and other accused were indulging in illegal export of antiquities. In the course of investigation at the instance of accused Nand Ram some articles of first FIR and at his instances 12 articles of the present FIR were recovered from godown at Mahipalpur. Petitioner Rajeev Gupta was arrested but other petitioner was not arrested in subsequent FIR. Prosecution for offences in same transaction lodged two FIRs, present FIR being U/s 120B IPC r/w 25(2) & 14(3) of AAT Act, 1972.
3. Present revision has been filed mainly on the grounds (1) that on information received on 19/12/2003 investigation was carried out and recoveries from two places were made. But instead of lodging one Fir, respondent lodged two FIRs which are neither permissible in law nor were justified in the fact and circumstances of the case. (2) The offences of the present FIR were non cognizable and therefore, without seeking permission of the court prosecution could not have investigated the matter. But prosecution to byepass the said requirement, malafidely had added offences U/s 411 IPC. It is stated that the notice U/s 251 Cr. PC against the petitioners was liable to be setaside and the petitioners were to be discharged.
4. As per facts available on record, reliable information was received by the prosecution on 19/12/2002 that some persons including the petitioners were indulging in illegal export of antiquities. During investigation one consignment was checked and it was found that 16 antiquities had been booked for export consignment. During the course of further investigation accused Nand Ram disclosed and led to recovery of antiquities lying at the godown at Mahipal Pur Extension wherein 12 articles (stone sculptures) non registered CR no.:20/15 Page 2/4 were recovered. The FIR of the present case was consequently registered for the said offences U/s 120B/411 IPC r/w 25(2) & 14(3) AAT Act. Subsequently, during the course of investigation no proof in regard to alleged articles being stolen was found and therefore, section 411 IPC was dropped.
5. The facts available on record also reveal that the first FIR was registered in respect of antiquities being illegally exported by the accused person but during the course of investigation of the said FIR one of the accused led to further recovery of the antiquities which were kept in violation of law in the godown at Mahipal Pur. The offences in question of the present FIR & earlier FIR were therefore, distinct offences, one relating to illegal export and other relating to non registration of the antiquities. Further there is difference of accused persons in the two FIR, one relates to 05 accused while second relates to 03 accused only. Although offences of similar nature can be investigated and tried together as per section 219 or 220 Cr. PC but in the present case offences and accused were stated to be dissimilar and distinct. In respect of second objection raised by the petitioner, that case was initially also registered under 411 IPC malafidely. The investigating agency had given justified reasons for inclusion of the said section stating that at the said time there was probability that antiquities could be stolen however, during the course of investigation no proof of the same was obtained therefore, the section was dropped. The said action of prosecution to have initially added section 411 IPC does not show any malafide intention of the respondent as it is the case of petitioners itself that during course of investigation of first FIR which was for cognizable offence discovery of articles of this case was made. Even otherwise it is not shown as to what prejudice is being caused to the petitioners by proceedings of two FIR as the offence of the said case are distinct and can legally be tried separately.
CR no.:20/15 Page 3/4
6. There is therefore, no infirmity in the order of the Ld. Trial Court. The revision petition is dismissed. Copy of order be sent to Ld. Trial Court. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (DINESH BHATT)
on 10/04/2015 ASJ/Delhi/10/04/2015
CR no.:20/15 Page 4/4