Delhi District Court
State vs Vinay Kumar on 28 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH.RAMESH KUMAR,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CR No.49/2022
CIS No. DLNE01-000777-2022
In the matter of:
State, NCT of Delhi,
Through SHO PS EOW,
Delhi. ............ Revisionist
Versus
Vinay Kumar
S/o Kaushal Kumar
R/o A-21, West Jyoti
Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. ...........Respondent
Date of institution of case: 21.03.2022
Date of hearing arguments: 28.09.2022
Date of passing of judgment: 28.09.2022
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, UNDER SECTION 397 READ
Crl. No.49/22 State Vs. Vinay Kumar Page 1/6
WITH SECTION 399 OF Cr.P.C, AGAINST THE IMPUGNED
ORDER, DATED 31.01.2022, PASSED BY THE COURT OF
SH.ARUN KUMAR GARG, THE THEN LD.CMM, (NORTH-EAST)
DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI, IN CASE
No.462201/2015, TITLED AS "STATE VS. VINAY KUMAR".
JUDGMENT:
1. The present is a judicial verdict, passed in criminal revision petition, preferred by the State through SHO PS EOW, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as revisionist), against the impugned order, dated 31.01.2022, passed by the court of Sh. Arun Kumar Garg, the then ld. CMM, NorthEast District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in case titled as "State Vs. Vinay Kumar", FIR no.141/2010, PS Economic Offence Wing, Delhi, whereby, the ld. Trial Court, directed the Special Commissioner of Police, EOW, to ensure the conclusion of entire pending investigation in the matter by the next date of hearing, and, to furnish a compliance report under his signatures.
2. It is stated, in the revision petition, that, after completion of investigation in case FIR No.141/2010, chargesheet was filed, before the ld. Trial Court, on 08.11.2011, however, entire investigation could not be completed on certain points, therefore, further investigation was being carried out in the matter. It is, further, stated, that, on 20.12.2021, Investigating Officer SI Vikram Singh, filed a second supplementary charge sheet qua accused Akshay Kumar and Vinay Kumar, and, he submitted before the ld. Trial Court, that, in order to ascertain roles of some other suspects, further investigation is required to be carried out in the matter. It is, further stated, that, on the date of passing of the impugned order, dated Crl. No.49/22 State Vs. Vinay Kumar Page 2/6 31.01.2022, concerned IO filed third supplementary charge sheet in the matter along with sanction under section 195 Cr.P.C qua accused Bidhu Ram. However, the ld. Trial Court, observed, that, concerned IO failed to investigate the role of some daily wagers, and, some other officials on the basis of report of Finger Print Bureau. As such, in these circumstances, the ld. Trial Court, directed Special Commissioner of Police (EOW) to ensure conclusion of entire pending investigation positively before the next date of hearing before the ld. Trial Court, and, to furnish compliance report under his signature to this effect.
3. I have heard ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, and, carefully perused the material placed on record.
4. The relevant portion of the impugned order, dated 31.01.2022, is reproduced, herein, below as under: "........Third supplementary charge sheet has been filed by the IO in the present case along with prosecution sanction in terms of section 195 Cr.P.C qua accused Bidhu Ram, however, IO has once again failed to conclude further investigation in the present case qua role of some daily wagers and some other officials on the basis of report of the Finger Print Bureau in terms of submissions made by him on 20.12.2021. Under the aforesaid circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct Spl. Commissioner of Police, EOW, to ensure conclusion of entire pending investigation in the present case by the NDOH and to furnish a compliance report under his signature considering the fact that the Crl. No.49/22 State Vs. Vinay Kumar Page 3/6 present case pertains to the year 2010......."
5. It is argued by ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, that, the impugned order, dated 31.01.2022, is, unsustainable, as the ld. Trial Court, failed to take note of the fact, that, the present matter involves delicate, and, important element of investigation of a serious offence like large scale criminal conspiracy, embezzlement of public money, forgery and cheating, which requires detailed investigation, as such, in these circumstances, investigating agency is taking time to conclude the same, and, sincere efforts are being made to this effect. It is, further argued, that, the time taken in concluding the investigation cannot be terms as unreasonable delay, given the seriousness, and, technicalities involved in the matter. It is, further argued, that, sanction to prosecute alleged accused persons does not come under the jurisdiction of the investigating agency as Economic Offence Wing, Delhi, can only request the competent authority to grant prosecution sanction. As such, it is argued, that, the investigating agency cannot be held liable for delay being caused in concluding the investigation. It is, further argued, that, if the initial order itself is wrong, and, not as per provisions of law, then, the entire order or proceedings, based on it, shall be against the settled principles of law. In these circumstances, it is prayed, that, the present revision petition be allowed, and, the impugned order be set aside.
6. In the present matter, it is pertinent to note, that, after the passing of the impugned order, dated 31.01.2022, efforts have been made by the revisionist to expedite further investigation in the present matter as revisionist procured some original documents from the ld. Trial Court, which were required for the purpose of further investigation. Perusal of Trial Court record reveals, that, concerned IO filed status report before the Crl. No.49/22 State Vs. Vinay Kumar Page 4/6 ld. Trial Court on 30.06.2022, and, the ld. Trial Court, was pleased to grant some more time to concerned IO to file status report concerning forensic laboratory, and, for filing of supplementary charge sheet in the matter. Perusal of Trial Court record shows, that, efforts are being made by the revisionist to expedite the investigation in the matter.
7. In this background, it is pertinent to rely on the judgment titled as State of Punjab Vs. Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors, wherein, it was held as under:
"72. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strike at the root of the order. In such a fact situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, and, circumstances of the case and, particularly, the fact, that, after passing of the impugned order, dated 31.01.2022, efforts are being made by the revisionist to expedite the investigation, the impugned order, dated, 31.01.2022, is modified to the extent that directions of the ld. Trial Court, directing Special Commissioner of Police, EOW, Delhi, to furnish compliance report under his signature, is set aside. With these observation, present revisions petition is disposed of.
9. Copy of this judgment, along with Trial Court Record, be sent back to the ld.Trial Court for information.
Crl. No.49/22 State Vs. Vinay Kumar Page 5/610. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by RAMESH RAMESH KUMAR
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN KUMAR Date:
2022.09.28
COURT ON 28th SEPTEMBER, 15:01:53 +0530
2022
(RAMESH KUMAR)
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Crl. No.49/22 State Vs. Vinay Kumar Page 6/6