Delhi High Court - Orders
Dr Anbumani Ramadoss vs Cbi on 19 September, 2024
$~16 & 17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4442/2015, CRL.M.A. 6570/2024 & CRL.M.A. 7413/2024
DR ANBUMANI RAMADOSS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukul Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Tushar Gupta, Mr. Sumit Kr. Mishra
and Mr. Parinay Gupta, Advs.
versus
CBI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Prasanta Varma, SPP with Mrs.
Pragya Verma, Mr. Rajesh K. Polo,
Mr. Rakesh K. Polo and Mr. Mayank
K. Verma, Advs.
+ CRL.M.C. 4443/2015, CRL.M.A. 6594/2024 & CRL.M.A. 6595/2024
ANBUMANI RAMADOSS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukul Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Tushar Gupta, Mr. Sumit Kr. Mishra
and Mr. Parinay Gupta, Advs.
versus
SUPDT. OF POLICE (CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION)
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Prasanta Varma, SPP with Mrs.
Pragya Verma, Mr. Rajesh K. Polo,
Mr. Rakesh K. Polo and Mr. Mayank
K. Verma, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
ORDER
% 19.09.2024
1. Mr. Mukul Gupta, Senior Counsel for the petitioner appears and states the original petitions had been filed inter alia for setting aside of order dated 07th October, 2015 which had directed framing of charges against the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2024 at 13:18:48 petitioners.
2. Subsequently, by order dated 29th July, 2019 of this Court, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
3. By the impugned order, some accused inter alia the petitioners herein were directed to be charged, whereas some other co-accused were discharged. The discharged accused preferred a special leave petition being SLP (Criminal) No.9567/2019 before the Supreme Court.
4. On 25th October, 2019, notice was issued by the Supreme Court limited to the question as to why the matter should not be remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration "with regard to the petitioners". The operation of the impugned order was directed to be stayed "insofar as the petitioners are concerned".
5. Subsequently, by judgment dated 27th July, 2022, the Court stated as under:
"We have perused the impugned judgment. Though the High Court has laboured to pen down a judgment of 66 paragraphs, there is no reasoning at all as to why it found error with the order of the learned trial court discharging the appellants. By the impugned judgment, a valuable right which accrued in favour of the appellants of being discharged, has been taken away without assigning any reasons.
On this short ground, we find that the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside."
6. On this basis, senior counsel contends that since the petitioners before the Supreme Court were the discharged co-accused and not the petitioners herein, or any others who had been directed to be charged, the judgment of the Supreme Court setting aside the order of this Court would only be This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2024 at 13:18:48 applied to the extent of the discharged co-accused.
7. Ergo, the order of the High Court to the extent of the charged accused which included the petitioners would subsist, and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for a fresh consideration.
8. In this regard, senior counsel for petitioners relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd., (1992) 4 SCC 363 (referring to para 39) where the Court has stated that the judgment must be read as a whole and the observations have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before the Court; Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2008) 16 SCC 14 (referring to para 7) and Credential Leasing & Credits Ltd. v. Shruti Investments & Anr., CRL.L.P. 558/2014 (referring to para 18) of this Court.
9. Essentially, it is submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court will have to be read as applicable qua the discharged accused and necessary consequences would, therefore, follow.
10. Counsel for the CBI seeks to address these issues on the next date of hearing. He also states that he does not have access to full Court file.
11. The Registry is directed to give them e-file, on their request.
12. List on 14th November, 2024.
13. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 19, 2024/MK This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2024 at 13:18:48