Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Praveen Gupta vs S P E C B I Jaipur on 23 March, 2017
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B.Criminal Revision No. 434 / 2017
Praveen Gupta S/o Shri Suresh Chand Garg B/c Mahajan, R/o New
Mandi Narnaul, Distt. Mahendragarh (Haryana)
Accused--Petitioner
Versus
S.P.E. C.B.I. Jaipur Through PP
Non-Petitioner
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sharma for C.B.I.
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment 23/03/2017
1. Petitioner has filed this revision-petitioner aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.12.2016, passed by the Special Judge, (C.B.I) No. 1, Jaipur (Raj.), whereby the Court while deciding the sessions case has allowed the application filed under Section 319 Cr. P.C. by co-accused Jagdish and Gurpreet Singh and has decided to proceed against Madhur Garg, Vijay Pal Mahalawat, Anil Agarwal and the present petitioner.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the application filed by Jagdish Singh and Gurpreet Singh was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor and there was no evidence, whatsoever, against the present petitioner, who is a prosecution witness (PW-2). It is contended that only evidence which has come up in the case is that the petitioner filled up two account opening forms Ex.P-21-A & Ex.P-25-A. (2 of 3) [CRLR-434/2017]
3. It is also contended that while deciding the main sessions case the Court cannot pass an order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is also contended that the Branch Manager Amit Rao Yadav, who had signed the documents has been acquitted by the Court below. It is also argued that the Court can proceed under Section 319 only when it appears to the Court from the evidence that any person not arrayed as an accused has committed any offence for which such person can be tried together with the accused.
4. Counsel appearing for C.B.I. has argued that since the Court has taken cognizance against the present petitioner the impugned order cannot be said to be bad in law as there is evidence that documents Ex.P-21-A & Ex.P-25-A, were filled by the present petitioner.
5. I have considered the contentions. Admittedly, petitioner is a prosecution witness, the only evidence which has come before the Trial Court is to the effect that he has filled two account opening forms. There is no evidence whatsoever to the effect that the petitioner in connivance with other persons helped in opening fake accounts.
6. The fact that the Branch Manager who is responsible for opening of accounts has been acquitted, also the fact that the only evidence against the present petitioner pertains to filing of the account opening form. There was no material, whatsoever, before the Court below to have come to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to proceed against the petitioner.
7. Consequently, the impugned order to the extent it pertains to allowing the application under Section 319 Cr. P.C. qua the (3 of 3) [CRLR-434/2017] present petitioner is set-aside. The miscellaneous revision petition is, accordingly, allowed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI)J. Amit/105