Delhi High Court - Orders
K P Tandon vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 23 May, 2022
Author: Asha Menon
Bench: Asha Menon
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 314/2022, CRL.M.A. 10118/2022 (for stay)
K P TANDON ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rohan Sharma,
Mr. Anurag Sharma, Advocates with
petitioner in person
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Prasanta Varma, SPP. CBI with
Ms. Hiteshi Kakkar and Mr. Pabitra
Kumar, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
ORDER
% 23.05.2022 Crl.M.A.10119/2022 (Exemption)
1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CRL.REV.P. 314/2022, CRL.M.A. 10118/2022 (for stay)
1. The application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dated 16 th April, 2022 and 2nd May, 2022 in RC No.1(E)/2013/EOW-IV/CBI/ND, u/s 120B R/W 420/471 IPC and Sec.13(2) R/W 13(1)(D) P.C. Act.
2. Request against the orders dated 20th February, 2022 whereby the learned Special Judge directed framing of charges against the petitioner and framed the charges on 2nd May, 2022 under Sections 120B R/W 420, 471 IPC and Sec.13(2) R/W 13(1)(D) P.C. Act.
3. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned senior counsel submits that in CRL.REV.P. 314/2022 Page 1 of 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:23.05.2022 20:02:02 assessing the charge against the petitioner, the learned Trial Court has given undue heed to the written arguments to conclude that the petitioner had kept the officers of OPaL and EIL in the dark about the settling of the terms of the tender bids, particularly the financial eligibility. By doing so, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Trial Court had overlooked the documentary evidence on the record, such as the Minutes of the Meetings and the emails exchanged between the petitioner/his subordinates with officials of OPaL and EIL, which also indicated that the reduction in the financial eligibility was a participative decision, with no objections being recorded from either OPaL or EIL. Certification was to be verified by others in EIL against whom departmental action was alone recommended. The forged certificate was allegedly issued from Qatar and it was not the obligation of the petitioner to have verified the authenticity of that document.
4. Hence, it was submitted that no role could be assigned to the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. Even if the reduction in the eligibility criteria is laid at the door of the petitioner, as no loss has been revealed that would establish some culpability on the part of the petitioner, no charge ought to have been framed against him.
5. Issue notice to the CBI through Standing Counsel, returnable before the next date of hearing.
6. List on 18th July, 2022.
7. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
ASHA MENON, J MAY 23, 2022/ak CRL.REV.P. 314/2022 Page 2 of 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:23.05.2022 20:02:02