Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 12 March, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hemant Gupta
1
ITEM NO.24 Court 8 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2105-
2106/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-11-
2020 in CRLBA (ST) No. 1924/2020 04-11-2020 in CRLBA (ST) No.
1925/2020 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)
KAPIL WADHAWAN ETC. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.34074/2021-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.34077/2021-
PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES )
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 2111-2112/2021 (II-A)
( IA No.34200/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No.34199/2021-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 12-03-2021 These petitions were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
For Petitioner(s) Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Dakshini, Adv.
Ms. Aakanksha Saxena, Adv.
Mr. Shubham Kulshreshtha, Adv.
Ms. Tanvi Manchanda, Adv.
Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR
Mr. Gautam Awasthi, AOR
Signature Not Verified
For Respondent(s) Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG.
Digitally signed by
ASHA SUNDRIYAL
Date: 2021.03.12
18:03:55 IST
Reason: Ms. Sairica Raju, Adv.
Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Kanu AGrawal, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv.
2
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner(s) inter alia seeks to contend that the filing of the charge sheet on the 60th day without list of witnesses and documents does not amount to a proper filing of charge sheet. He further seeks to submit that the insertion of Section 409 of the IPC in the charge sheet is ex facie not sustainable and has been done only with the intent of extending the time period for filing the charge sheet from 60 to 90 days as the list of witnesses and documents was not filed within the period of 60 days. He seeks tagging with the Reference made by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.701-702/2020 qua the same petitioners.
The aforesaid position is sought to be seriously disputed by the learned Additional Solicitor General.
We are of the view that the appropriate course of action would be to merely place these matters before the same Bench without any formal order of tagging. Thus, as and when the matter is placed before the three Judges Bench in the Reference order in Criminal Appeal Nos.701-702/2020, these matters be also placed before the Bench for taking the necessary call.
[ASHA SUNDRIYAL] [POONAM VAID]
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)