Delhi District Court
S.S. Duggal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 18 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF ANIL KUMAR SISODIA, SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC Act) (CBI)04, CENTRAL DISTT., TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
CNR No. DLCT010099002018
Criminal Revision No. 553/2018
S.S. Duggal
S/o Late Sh. Sarup Singh Duggal
R/o A393, Defence Colony,
New Delhi. .....Revisionist/Accused
Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation
CBI Headquarter, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi
Through Investigating Officer ..... Respondent/Complainant
Arising out of matter :
RC No. 6/89 and New Case No. 77/16
PS CBI/SPE/SUVI
CBI Vs Swaranjit Singh Duggal
Date of Institution : 31.07.2018
Date of reserving order : 16.10.2018
Date of pronouncement : 18.10.2018
Cr. Revision No. 553/2018 S.S. Duggal Vs CBI Page 1 of 10
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the present revision petition filed by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the Ld. Trial Court on the application filed by the revisionist for disposal of case in RC 6/89/SPF/CBI/SIU (VIII) New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "State case").
2. In the revision petition, it has been stated that vide impugned order dated 03.07.2018, Ld. Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the revisionist seeking disposal of both the cases i.e. State case as well as the complaint case titled as "State Vs SS Duggal & Ors." simultaneously. Both the cases are pending in the same court.
3. It has further been stated in the application that FIR no. RC 6/89/SPF/CBI/SIU (VIII) New Delhi dated 09.08.1989 u/s 420/468/471 IPC with PS SIU (VIII) CBI was registered against M/s Tiffin and Ms. Kamla Singh, proprietor of M/s Tiffin. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed against revisionist on 30.01.1992 on the allegations that he dishonestly and fraudulently submitted an application on 27.03.1986 in the office of Development Commissioner, Handicraft, R.K. Puram, New Delhi for registration of firm M/s Tiffin by forging signatures of Ms. Kamla Singh and obtained registration number HB/NB/EXP/2244/86/87 dated 25.04.1986 valid upto Cr. Revision No. 553/2018 S.S. Duggal Vs CBI Page 2 of 10 24.06.1993. The revisionist further dishonestly and fraudulently submitted an application dated 02.01.1985 in the office of Textile Commissioner, Greater Kailash, New Delhi and got the firm M/s Tiffin registered vide registration no. 8794 dated 02.01.1985. The application for registration did not contain genuine signature of Ms. Kamla Singh.
4. It was further stated in the petition that on 24.06.1993 a complaint u/s 120B r/w Sections 420/468/471 IPC and u/s 5 of Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 was filed in the court of Ld. CMM, Delhi against the revisionist and four other accused including M/s Tiffin on the basis of same allegations as alleged in the chargesheet dated 30.01.1992.
5. It was further stated that charge was framed against revisionist on 26.08.1996 and 13 witnesses were examined by CBI during trial and the matter was fixed for final arguments. The complaint case is also pending for arguments on charge after completion of precharge evidence. Revisionist filed an application on 24.08.2017 for disposal of both the cases simultaneously as 11 witnesses are common in both the cases and documents in both the cases are same and the said application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 03.07.2018.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, revisionist has challenged the same on the ground that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that Cr. Revision No. 553/2018 S.S. Duggal Vs CBI Page 3 of 10 documents relied upon by the CBI in the State case as well as complaint are same and the witnesses examined by the CBI in State case are also witnesses in the complaint. Ld. Trial Court also failed to appreciate that judgment in one case would have impact in the other case. Ld. Trial Court disposed off the application without giving proper hearing to the revisionist as main counsel was not present on that day. Ld. Trial Court also failed to appreciate that revisionist was not responsible for the delay caused in the trial and he had not asked for any adjournment unnecessarily and it is the prosecution which took so much time in examining 13 witnesses. Both the State case and complaint case are based on same allegations and relying on the same documents. Ld. Trial Court also failed to consider the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab (1985) 1 SCC 422.
A prayer was made for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.07.2018 and for directing the Trial Court to dispose of both the cases simultaneously.
7. Notice of the revision petition was issued to the respondent / CBI. Ld. Sr. PP for respondent/CBI has appeared and filed reply to the revision petition.
8. In reply to the criminal revision petition, it is stated that the prosecution evidence in the case titled as CBI Vs SS Duggal was Cr. Revision No. 553/2018 S.S. Duggal Vs CBI Page 4 of 10 closed on 17.11.2005 and the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 23.07.2007 and thereafter the case was fixed for defence evidence. The accused earlier moved an application dated 18.07.2008 before the Ld. Trial Court to club the trial of State case and complaint filed by DGFT and the same was dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2009 and matter was fixed for DE for 19.01.2010. Thereafter, the revisionist filed a petition before the Ld. Session Judge for setting aside the order dated 23.11.2009 which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.11.2013 by Ld. Session Judge and returned the matter to the Trial Court for deciding the same on merit. It is stated that both the matter i.e State case and complaint case filed by DGFT are different and not connected to each other and cannot be clubbed together being different. Moreover, Ld. ASJ dismissed the application of the revisionist for clubbing the trial of both the cases vide its order dated 25.11.2013 and returned the same to the Ld. Trial Court.
9. I have heard ld. Counsel for the revisionist / accused as well as ld. Addl. Sr. P.P for the respondent / CBI and have perused the record carefully.
10. Perusal of the chargehseet in the State case shows that there is only one accused i.e the present revisionist. The chargesheet has been filed on the allegations that the revisionist dishonestly and fraudulently submitted an application in the office of Development Commissioner, Cr. Revision No. 553/2018 S.S. Duggal Vs CBI Page 5 of 10 Handicraft, R.K. Puram ,New Delhi for registration of the firm M/s Tiffin by forging the signature of Ms. Kamla Singh as its proprietor and submitted the forged documents, all containing forged signature of Ms. Kamla Singh and obtained registration number HB/NB/EXP/2244/86/87 dated 25.04.1986 valid upto 24.06.1993 from the Development Commissioner and which was subsequently utilized by him in obtaining advanced import license no. P/K/2442376 dated 23.12.1986. It was also stated that the revisionist had nothing to do with the firm M/s Tiffin as it was proprietorship concern of Ms. Kamla Singh. Liberty was also sought in the chargesheet for filing separate complaint as envisaged vide Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 for the other offences. The State case is now at the stage of final arguments and is listed before Ld. Trial Court for final arguments on 29.11.2018.
11. The complaint case, on the other hand involves five accused including the present revisionist and has been filed for the offence u/s 5 of Import & Export (Control) Act, 1947 alleging that the revisionist obtained advanced import license by filing application dated 18.09.1986 in the name of M/s Tiffin for importing Brass Scrap under Duty Exemption Scheme under the forged signature of Ms. Kamla Singh and also furnished forged documents. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused persons had cheated Govt. of India by not paying the custom duty against the imported goods and also by not Cr. Revision No. 553/2018 S.S. Duggal Vs CBI Page 6 of 10 exporting the goods to the tune of Rs. 17,90,860/ resulting in loss of foreign exchange of the said amount to the Government.
12. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has argued on the lines of the revision petition and has submitted that Ld. Trial Court should dispose of the State case as well as the complaint case simultaneously as both the cases are arising out of the same facts and documents and even the witnesses in both the cases are same except the IO and if one case is decided earlier, the revisionist will be gravely prejudiced. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Harjinder Singh (supra) in support of his arguments that both the cases should be disposed of simultaneously.
13. Ld. Sr. PP for the respondent has vehemently opposed the revision petition on the ground that the same has been filed merely to delay the disposal of the case which is already more than twenty years old. It has been argued that the two cases are different and there is no requirement of their simultaneously disposal. It was denied that decision of the State case would have any impact on the complaint case. It has been argued that the complaint case is at its initial stages and even charge has not been framed whereas the State case is at the stage of final arguments and no purpose will be served by keeping the State case pending. It was also argued that the revisionist is in the habit of moving applications to delay the trial of the State case. It was Cr. Revision No. 553/2018 S.S. Duggal Vs CBI Page 7 of 10 argued that earlier also revisionist filed an application for clubbing of the two cases which was dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2009 and a revision was filed against the said order which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.11.2013.
14. A bare perusal of the chargesheet and the complaint case would show that the two cases are based on separate transactions and are for different offences. While the State case is for the offences u/s 420/468/471 IPC, the complaint case relates to offence u/s 5 of Import & Export (Control) Act, 1947 committed by the revisionist. The number of accused in both the cases are different. Although, there is some overlapping of the facts in the two cases but that itself cannot be a ground for issuing directions to the Ld. Trial Court to dispose of both the cases simultaneously. A perusal of the order passed by the Ld. ASJ in CR No. 161/2013 dated 25.11.2013 shows that during the course of arguments in the said revision petition, Ld. counsel for the respondent (CBI) had submitted at Bar that the complaint case shall be pursued only with respect to the offence u/s 5 of the Import & Export (Control) Act, 1947 and not with respect to the other offences u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC. Ld. ASJ had accordingly held that both the cases may continue separately since no evidence shall be led pertaining to the offences u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC in the complaint case and the contention of counsel for petitioner (revisionist herein) with respect to double jeopardy shall be taken care of.
Cr. Revision No. 553/2018 S.S. Duggal Vs CBI Page 8 of 1015. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh's case (Supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the present case as facts of the present case are totally different from the said case and the trial in the State case has already concluded whereas in the complaint case, even charge has not been framed.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am unable to accept the contention of the revisionist that both the cases should be disposed of simultaneously, more particularly when both the cases are for distinct offences, number of accused in both the cases are different and both the cases are at different stages. The State case is already more than 20 years old and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already issued directions to the subordinate courts to dispose of the old cases at the earliest, therefore, I am not inclined to issue any directions as prayed by the revisionist. Rather, Ld. Trial Court should dispose of the State case at the earliest.
17. In view of the entire facts and circumstances, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 03.07.2018 passed by Ld. Trial Court and the same is accordingly confirmed. The revision petition filed by the revisionist is devoid of any merits and the same appears to have been filed only with the sole motive to delay the disposal of the State case. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed Cr. Revision No. 553/2018 S.S. Duggal Vs CBI Page 9 of 10 with a cost of Rs. 10,000/ on the revisionist. The revisionist shall deposit the cost with Ld. Trial Court within two weeks from today.
Trial Court record be sent back forthwith alongwith copy of this order.
The revision petition be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR ANIL KUMAR SISODIA
SISODIA Date: 2018.10.18
14:37:16 +0530
Announced in the open court (ANIL KUMAR SISODIA)
On 18th day of October, 2018 Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)04
Central Distt: Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
Cr. Revision No. 553/2018 S.S. Duggal Vs CBI Page 10 of 10