Delhi High Court - Orders
Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 20 May, 2022
Author: Yogesh Khanna
Bench: Yogesh Khanna
$~57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2357/2022
DR. ANBUMANI RAMADOSS
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Mukul Gupta, Senior Advocate
with Mr.Tushar Gupta, Mr.Sumit
Kumar Mishra, Ms.Radhika,
Mr.Parinay, Advocates.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Prasanta Varma, SPP with
Ms.Hiteshi Kakkar, Mr.Pabitra
Kr.Paik, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
ORDER
% 20.05.2022 CRL M.A. No.9962/2022
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 2357/2022 & CRL M.A. No.9961/2022
3. This petition is filed with the following prayers:
"1. Allow the present petition and set aside the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the Ld Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, in CC No.CBI/48/2019 titled as CBI v. Dr. Keshav Kumar Aggarwal & Ors.;
2. Dispense with the physical appearance/attendance of the Petitioner in the case pertaining to the RC 0062010A0014 pending before the Ld Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, as CC No.CBI/48/2019 titled as CBI v. Dr. Keshav Kumar Aggarwal & Ors.;"
4. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner earlier charges were directed to be framed against the petitioner but the petitioner filed CRL.M.C.4443/2015 which was then decided on 29.07.2019 noting interalia:
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:21.05.2022 12:48"37. During the course of the arguments, Learned counsels has pointed out that the inspection team has carried out videography and the said set of videography is not supplied to the Petitioners/Accused persons and the factum of videography is not disputed in the statement of the witness. The CBI also has not disputed carrying out the videography during the inspection. However, it is submitted that it has not been made part of the chargsheet.
The said videography is a material evidence to reach to the conclusion, thus, the CD of the videography be supplied to the petitioners to show innocence on their part.
40. In presence of the above statements and arguments the impugned Order on Charge dated 07.10.2015 is set aside with a direction to the Trial Court to hear the parties on merit afresh after duly supplying the copy of videography, of inspection carried out by MCI on 20.10.2008 which was subsequently seized by CBI, to all the accused persons."
5. Despite this order the CBI did not supply the copy of the videography to the petitioner.
6. It is the submission of the learned SPP for the CBI such videography was not available with the CBI and this submission was not accepted by the learned Trial Court, hence they have gone to Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP, which is pending.
7. In any case, the trial of the present case is not moving forward before the learned Trial Court and hence till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide the SLP, the petitioner is exempted through his counsel to appear before the learned Trial Court except on dates when the Court is desirous to frame a charge or otherwise require.
8. List on 07.09.2022.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
MAY 20, 2022 DU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:21.05.2022 12:48