Delhi District Court
Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs Cbi on 5 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH.SHAILENDER MALIK, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC
ACT), CBI-21: ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No..28/2025
CNR No. DLCT11-000689-2025
Sanjeev Kumar Garg
s/o Lt. Sh.Ishwar Dass
r/o B-1/587, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058. ...Revisionist
Versus
(1)Central Bureau of Investigation
Through CBI/ACB, New Delhi
Office at: Plot No.5-B,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003. ...Respondent No.1
(2)Gyan Chand Aggarwal
s/o Lt. Sh.Bhagwan Dass Aggarwal
r/o A-1/43, Prashant Vihar,
Sector-14, Rohini,
New Delhi-110085. ...Respondent No.2
Date of Institution : 21.07.2025
Date of arguments heard : 04.08.2025
Date of order : 05.08.2025
ORDER
1. This is revision under Section 438 read with 440 of BNSS challenging the proprietary of orders dated 09.05.2025 in CC No. CBI/509/2019, arising out of FIR No. RC DAI 2006 A 0053 whereby accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal (respondent no.2 herein) was convicted on Digitally signed by _____________________________________________________________________ SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.1 2025.08.05 15:55:41 +0530 his application for plea of guilt and was sentenced for simple imprisonment till rising of court as well as with fine of Rs.65,000/- and a compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded to revisionist herein. Revisionist is one of the victim of CGHS scam.
Factual background
2. In terms of order dated 13.02.2006 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CWP 10066/2004, CBI was directed to investigate matters relating to Cooperative Group Housing Society scam. In respect of Shiam CGHS, a preliminary inquiry was initiated and thereafter RC DAI 2006 A 0053 was registered under Section 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC. Upon completion of investigation CBI filed charge sheet on 31.12.2007 against four accused namely (i) Gyan Chand Aggarwal (respondent no.2 herein);
(ii) Kishan Kumar Aggarwal; (iii) Anil Kumar; and (iv) Dinesh Kumar. On the basis of material collected during the investigation, ld. ACMM framed charges against above said four accused persons for offence under Section 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC as well as for substantive offence under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC. At that stage all the four accused persons did not plead guilty and claim trial.
3. Subsequent to framing of charge, one of the accused namely Dinesh Kumar filed an application of plea bargaining, said application was allowed by the Link Court of ACMM and by order dated 06.08.2022 said accused stood convicted in the process of plea bargaining after recording of mutual satisfactory disposition and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court, with fine amount of Rs.90,000/-
Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK _____________________________________________________________________ Date:
2025.08.05 15:55:49 +0530 Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.2 which was paid to one of the victims in the present case. Revisionist herein however stated in that plea bargaining proceedings that he is not seeking compensation from accused Dinesh Kumar.
4. Thereafter other two accused persons namely Anil Kumar and Kishan Kumar Aggarwal also moved an application for plea bargaining, which was also allowed in the same manner by order dated 18.12.2024 and those two accused also stood convicted in that proceedings for above mentioned offences and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of court, with directions to pay fine in the shape of compensation for victims, out of which a compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was jointly paid by both the accused to revisionist herein.
5. Thereafter respondent no.2/accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal has also moved an application dated 23.12.2024 for pleading guilt to the charge. It be noted here that till the stage of his moving application for pleading guilty, prosecution could not lead any evidence as matter remained pending, for disposal of plea bargaining applications moved by other accused persons, which stood disposed off as noted above. On the application of pleading guilty by respondent no.2 herein, notices were issued to victims including revisionist herein who as per judicial record appeared on 17.01.2025, 31.01.2025 as well as on 03.03.2025. Ld. ACJM by impugned order dated 09.05.2025, allowed that application of pleading guilty and convicted respondent no.2 herein Gyan Chand Aggarwal for offence under Section 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC as well as under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC, which is being reproduced herein below : Digitally signed by _____________________________________________________________________ SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.32025.08.05 15:55:57 +0530 "The present application has been filed by accused/applicant Gyan Chand Aggarwal for expressing his willingness to plead guilty to the offences for which he has been charged with. It is stated in the application that the accused/applicant Gyan Chand Aggarwal is 71 years old and is suffering from various diseased like high blood pressure and diabetes.
Notice of the application was given to the prosecution. Notice was also issued to all the victims of the case. Pursuance to the notice, victims Pooran Chand, Arun Goyal, Ram Vilas Gupta, Pradeep Sharma, Anoop Sharma, Prakash Aggarwal, Naresh Kumar and Ashwani Sharma appeared in the court and submitted that they do not want any compensation from accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal and will have no objection if a lenient view is taken against the accused on his pleading guilty. Their statements to this effect were recorded separately.
On behalf of victim Brahm Prakash, Ms. Tanvi Manchand, Advocate appeared and informed that victim Brahm Prakash is bed ridden and on instructions, she stated that Brahm Prakash does not want any compensation from accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal and will have no objection if a lenient view is taken against the accused on his pleading guilty. Statement of Ms. Tanvi Manchanda, Advocate was separately recorded in this regard.
Summon issued to victim S.C. Nagrath were received back with the report that he is bed ridden. Fresh summons were directed to be issued to victim S.C. Nagrath through the HIO to appear through VC/authorized representative or to give instructions to the HIO as to whether he is seeking any compensation from accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal and Digitally signed by whether he will have any objection in case accused Gyan SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.08.05 15:56:03 _____________________________________________________________________ +0530 Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.4 Chand Aggarwal pleads guilty. Accordingly, the IO filed a compliance report, whereby, it was informed that ASI Surender Singh visited the residence of victim S.C. Nagrath and was told that he was not willing to participate in the present proceedings, does not want any compensation from accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal and has no objection if accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal pleads guilty. Statement of victim S.C. Nagrath, to this effect, was separately obtained by the IO.
Victims Lila Dhar, Manmohan Goyal and Manmohan Lal have already expired and thus, no notice was issued to them. Notice issued to Rajender Singh Joon is received back with the report that he has expired.
Notice was also issued to victim Sanjeev Kumar who appeared before the court on 31.01.2025 and 03.03.2025. However, he was not willing to get his statement recorded, as was done by other victims.
I have explained to accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal, the implication/consequences of their pleading guilty. But he has persisted and stated that he want to plead guilty as he is suffering the ordeal of trial since the year 2006. Heard. Statement of the accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal has been separately recorded.
I am satisfied that his plea of guilt is voluntary in nature and it is free from any force, fear or coercion and that the accused understands the consequences/implications of his pleading guilty. In the light of the said voluntary plea of guilt, there is no reason to doubt the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, accused/applicant Gyan Chand Aggarwal is hereby convicted of the offences punishable under Section 120B r/w section 420/468/471 IPC and Section 420, 468 r/w 471 IPC."
Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
_____________________________________________________________________ 2025.08.05 15:56:09 Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.5 +0530
6. On the same day ld. ACJM sentenced the respondent no.2 herein for simple imprisonment till rising of court with fine of Rs.65,000/- and further to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to revisionist herein. This order is also being reproduced herein below :
"In the light of mitigating circumstances mentioned above, as well as no objection by the Ld. PP for the CBI, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met by sentencing the accused in the following manner:-
(i) the convict Gyan Chand Aggarwal shall undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court.
(ii) the convict shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as fine for commission of offence under Section 120 r/w Section 420/468/471 IPC.
(iii) the convict shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as fine for commission of offence under Section 420 IPC.
(iv) the convict shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as fine for commission of offence under Section 468 IPC.
(v) the convict shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as fine for commission of offence under Section 471 IPC.
(vi) Accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal shall deposit Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation which victim Sanjeev Kumar shall be at liberty to obtain from the court on filing a proper application.
Fine amount and compensation amount totalling Rs.1,65,000/- deposited. Receipt be issued. Respective personal bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Original documents, if any, be returned to the rightly claimant as per rules. Endorsement, if any, be also cancelled Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.08.05 15:56:14 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.6 as per rules. Requisite bonds under Section 437A has been furnished. The same are accepted.
Notice be issued to victim Sanjeev Kumar for obtaining the compensation amount for 26.05.2025."
Grounds of Revision
7. Above mentioned orders dated 09.05.2025 of ld. ACJM have been challenged by way of present revision on the ground that ld. ACJM has passed an illegal order as the court did not appreciate the fact that accused at the time when charges were framed did not plead guilty and court called upon the prosecution to adduce its evidence. In such situation trial was required to be carried out to the logical end and in between this stage unless some evidence has been recorded, statement of the accused for pleading guilty could not have been recorded as per the provisions of Cr.PC. Once the matter was fixed for recording of prosecution evidence, proceedings ought to have culminated in judgment as per Section 248 r/w 354 Cr.PC. It is stated that ld. ACJM has failed to appreciate that if the accused had not pleaded guilty when charges were framed, there was no provision in law, enabling the accused to move an application for plead guilty. Rather evidence ought to have been taken and matter should have culminated in the shape of judgment of either acquittal or conviction. Subsequent admission of guilt by respondent no.2 by moving an application pleading guilty, can be used as confirming the credibility of the Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.08.05 _____________________________________________________________________ 15:56:19 +0530 Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.7 evidence, formally to be adduced at the trial and judgment must be founded on the evidence and not merely on admission of guilt by the accused.
8. It is stated that ld. ACJM by passing the impugned orders had rather reviewed the order dated 30.01.2020 whereby charges were framed against the accused persons in which accused did not plead guilty and claim trial. It is stated that the court of ld. ACJM did not appreciate the fact that amount of compensation under Section 357 Cr.PC is to be determined on the basis of facts and circumstances, gravity of the crime, just and fairness of the claim, after weighing all the factors and evidence on the record. The amount of compensation so fixed by the court of ld. ACJM was arbitrary and without application of mind, without even examining certain material facts and evidence regarding the victim. Submissions
9. Notice of the revision petition was served to CBI as well as respondent no.2. I have heard Sh.Satyam Sharma, ld. Counsel for revisionist as well as ld. PP for CBI/respondent no.1 and Sh.Neeraj Gupta, ld. Counsel for respondent no.2.
10. Sh.Satyam Sharma, ld. Counsel for revisionist submitted that the most important aspect, regarding the illegality occurred in the impugned orders is the fact that when charges were framed all the four accused persons did not plead guilty and claim trial. Other three accused persons adopted the procedure of plea bargaining and they were convicted and sentenced in accordance with the procedure of plea bargaining and under a mutual satisfactory disposition. It is submitted that however _____________________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.8 SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.08.05 15:56:26 +0530 accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal did not resort to procedure of plea bargaining, rather straightaway moved an application for pleading guilty to the charge. It is argued by ld. Counsel for revisionist that once the matter was at the stage of trial and prosecution evidence was to be recorded, the court of ld. ACJM ought to have taken evidence of prosecution and to decide the matter on the basis of material and evidence collected. It is submitted that application of pleading guilty of the accused could at the most be considered to be an admission of all the incriminating evidence collected by the CBI. Fact remains that ld. Court of ACJM ought to have decided the matter by way of judgment on the basis of evidence as well as on the basis of admission by way of pleading guilty to the charge.
11. While putting much emphasis on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Gaurav Aggarwal vs. State 2019 SCC OnLine Del. 9262, it is submitted that once the trial had commenced and prosecution evidence was called upon, matter could not have been mechanically decided only on the application of accused for pleading guilty rather court ought to have passed a judgment on the basis of material /evidence including taking into consideration the admission of the accused to the evidence by way of plead guilty. It is also argued that there has been a consistent view of different High Courts corroborating the view as taken by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on this aspect.
12. Ld. Counsel for revisionist further argued that amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- fixed by the court of ld. ACJM, to be paid to the revisionist herein was without application of mind and a proper _____________________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by SHELENDER Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.9 SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.08.05 15:56:31 +0530 inquiry as is required in terms of Section 357 Cr.PC. While relying upon the judgment of Apex court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2013 SC 2454, It is submitted that power conferred to the court to award compensation is along with a bounded duty to consider the issue of compensation in every case after examining all the facts and evidence. It is submitted that the Court of ld. ACJM, ought to have taken into consideration the evidence collected by the CBI during investigation with regard to victim/revisionist herein and to decide the compensation whereas the court of ld. ACJM fixed the amount of compensation mechanically on the basis of the amount of compensation fixed in respect of other accused persons which was under the procedure of plea bargaining and a mutual satisfactory disposition.
13. Ld. PP for the CBI opposed the revision by submitting that since there was no evidence led and considerable period of time had already elapsed, respondent no.2 had already admitted the guilt and the evidence collected during the investigation, therefore conviction of the accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal was in accordance with law.
14. Sh.Neeraj Gupta, ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 also argued that entire edifice of filing of revision petition is in fact in a way challenging the discretionary power of the court while sentencing the accused. It is argued that such judicial discretion cannot be challenged when there is no arbitrariness or illegality. It is submitted that jurisdiction of revision cannot be invoked only to settle personal score and when there is no patent illegality in the order of the trial court. It is also argued by the Digitally _____________________________________________________________________ signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.10 MALIK Date:
2025.08.05 15:56:38 +0530 counsel for respondent no.2 that respondent no.2 had been facing the proceedings/trial in the matter for thirteen long years. Other accused persons had already been convicted by adopting the procedure of plea bargaining, in peculiar circumstances of the present case when the respondent no.2 herein/accused was 71 years of age, pleaded guilty to the charge and sought the culmination of the proceedings, after understanding all legal consequences. Ld. Counsel has relied upon judgment of Allahabad High Court in Ram Kishan vs. State of UP 1996 Crl.LJ 440 as well as judgment of Kerala High Court in Santhosh vs. State of Kerala (2003) 1 KLT 795 and submitted that the court can also adopt the procedure of deciding the matter on the plea of guilt of the accused even if at earlier stage accused when charges were framed did not plead guilty and claim trial.
Analysis & Conclusion
15. The criminal trial, goes in accordance with the procedure as laid down in erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure and now in terms of the provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Since the present case pertains to Cr.PC. It be noted that Cr.PC lays down detailed provisions for holding trial of criminal cases of different offences at different courts. 18th Chapter relates to trial before Court of Session, 19 th to 21st Chapter relate to trial before the Court of Magistrate, out of which the last Chapter pertains to summary trial. In trial before Court of Session provisions like Section 228(2), 229 and 330 provide regarding plea of guilt i.e. when the Sessions Court frame charges in Sessions trial and read over Digitally _____________________________________________________________________ signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.11 MALIK Date:
2025.08.05 15:56:48 +0530 and explained to the accused and accused is asked whether he wants to plead guilty to the charge or claims to be tried. If accused at that stage pleads guilty, Judge shall record the plea and proceed on its discretion to convict the accused as per law. If accused however refuses to plead guilty, obviously the trial would follow and evidence of prosecution would be recorded.
16. In the similar manner in warrant cases before Magistrate, there are provisions such as Section 240(2), 241 and 242 of Cr.PC and in warrant cases instituted otherwise than on police report, provisions are Section 246(1), 246(2), 246(3) and 246(4) of Cr.PC. In trial of summons cases, relevant provisions are Section 251, 252, 253(2) and 254 of Cr.PC. In criminal trial another stage comes when statement of the accused is to be recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.PC when incriminating prosecution evidence is put to the accused and accused has an opportunity to admit his guilt by admitting the incriminating evidence.
17. Beside the above noted provisions, there is no provision in the Cr.PC which lays down that after the stage under the above noted provisions having passed, whether accused can plead guilty. For example when trial is going on and evidence is to be recorded, whether accused can plead guilty to the charge, once he having denied for the same when charges were framed and claimed the trial against him. There has been divergent judicial views on this aspect. Before we proceed to discuss different judgments on this legal aspect, it is appropriate to refer to the SHELENDER judgment of Delhi High Court in Gaurav Aggarwal's case (supra) which MALIK _____________________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by SHELENDER Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.12 MALIK Date: 2025.08.05 15:56:54 +0530 has been heavily relied upon by ld. Counsel for the revisionist. Hon'ble High Court while taking note of above mentioned provisions and the fact that there has been no specific provision in Cr.PC, has observed in para 30 of the judgment as : "...if the accused pleads not guilty or plea of guilt is not acted upon to record conviction thereon, the court calling upon prosecution to adduce its evidence in support of its case, the trial proceeds in the manner prescribed in the law, it ordinarily culminating in a judgment setting out, inter alia "the points for determination", "the decision thereon" and "the reason for the decision", as indeed final conclusions resulting in acquittal or conviction. The prescribed criminal procedure does not concede exercise of plea of guilt (in answer to the charge or notice of accusation) being held more than once. Undoubtedly the Chapter XXI-A on "plea bargaining" permits a person accused of an offence to move an application "for plea bargaining". But then, Section 265B(1) Cr.PC makes it clear that such application is to be made to the court in which such offence is "pending for trial", it being implicit in the said expression that the case in which such application for plea bargaining is to be entertained cannot be one which is "pending trial".
18. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para 45 laid down the proposition as :
"45. To put it simply, once the trial has commenced, the prosecution having been called upon to adduce its witnesses (in the wake of accused having pleaded not guilty or notwithstanding the plea of guilty entered by him), the case Digitally signed by must result in the judgment (of conviction or acquittal) only SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.08.05 15:56:59 _____________________________________________________________________ +0530 Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.13 on the basis of evidence. Without doubt, the admission of evidence or of facts showing complicity in acts that constitute the guilt of an accused as appearing in proceedings held under Section 294 Cr.P.C. or his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC can be basis of the final judgment of conviction. But then, it is inherent in this that such admission(s) would be read as confirming the credibility of the evidence formally adduced at the trial and, therefore, the decision would essentially be founded on evidence and not (merely) on admission(s) or plea of guilty."
19. Apparently in view of above mentioned observation/legal proposition as laid down, present revision has been filed. In the above said judgment there are reference of other judgments also which reiterate the similar legal proposition to the effect :
"Having recorded the plea of not guilty, the Magistrate was bound to proceed with the examination of witness and dispose of the case on merits. There is no provision in Criminal Procedure Code authorizing the Magistrate to question the accused a second time as to whether he pleaded guilty or not and to convict him on plea of guilt."
(Reference : Daveed Chellayan vs. State 1957 TC 89, Jayanti Laxman vs. State 1964 (2) Crl.LJ 86, M. Kuppuswamy 1968 Crl.LJ 416, Re Selvi and others 1975 Crl.LJ 113, Lalji Ram vs. Corporation of Calcatta 1924 SCC OnLine Cal. 494, Kishore Chandra Bhanu Shankar vs. Bhavnagar Municipality 1969 Crl.LJ 1242).
20. However contrary view has also been taken by many High Courts. In Sham Charan Bharthuar and ors. vs. Emp. 1934 Patna 330, Digitally signed by _____________________________________________________________________ SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.142025.08.05 15:57:05 +0530 Patna High Court considered a batch of criminal appeals arising out of session trial, wherein after recording of 52 prosecution witnesses, when major portion of trial was already complete, on the application of accused persons pleading guilty, Sessions Courts convicted the accused persons u/s 121A IPC. In appeal inter alia it was challenged that proceedings ought to have concluded by judgment on the basis of evidence, however Patna High Court held that when accused in the course of trial withdraws his claim to be tried and pleads guilty to the court, he is entitled to get his plea recorded and to be accepted by the court instead of continuing with the trial. Such subsequent recording of plea of guilt was held to be mere an irregularity curable in terms of Section 465 of Code. Reference can also be given of judgment in Ram Kishan vs. State of UP (supra) wherein it was held that if at any stage accused pleads guilty and Judge being satisfied that said plea is voluntary plea and without any coercion, physical or mental, there is nothing in the Cr.PC to prevent such guilt being recorded and thereafter on its basis conviction can safely be recorded. In Santhosh vs. State of Kerala (supra), it was held that no doubt there is no specific provision in Cr.PC enabling the court to permit the accused to withdraw his claim to be tried and to convict him on a plea of guilt subsequently but there is no prohibition in the Cr.PC to record such plea of guilt during the course of trial. The object of trial is to investigate the offence and to find out the truth. When the guilt is admitted by the accused and admission is founded to be voluntary, there is no reason why the court should not allow him to withdraw his claim to be tried and pleaded guilty. Digitally signed by SHELENDER _____________________________________________________________________ SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.08.05 Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.15 15:57:11 +0530
21. Thus keeping in view the divergent view taken by different courts at different points of time, one needs to keep in mind that the ultimate object of any criminal proceedings/trial is to reach to the truth of the matter and to convict/acquit the accused in accordance with law. If at the stage when the charges were framed accused may not have pleaded guilty, that by itself is not sufficient for accused to face prolonged trial or to get judgment only on the basis of evidence to be recorded. The court of justice need to keep in mind all relevant factors including the pendency of cases, the fact that age of the accused etc.
22. The judgment of Delhi High Court in Gaurav Aggarwal's case (supra) however can be distinguished on certain factual aspects. In that case the plea of guilt was got recorded by the lawyers by giving statement before the Magistrate in the absence of his client/accused. The Hon'ble High Court in the peculiar facts of that case laid down the proposition as noted above as well as also noted that ld. Magistrate has not adopted proper procedure. Whereas in the present case it is accused who was 71 years of age when moved the application and pleaded guilty to the charge accepting the charge and allegations against him as well as understanding the legal consequence of his pleading guilty, as is very much reflected from the order of ld. ACJM reproduced above. It be also noted here that such application of pleading guilty was not mechanically decided rather notice of the same was given to revisionist herein who admittedly had appeared on 17.01.2025, 31.01.2025 and 03.03.2025. Ld. ACJM has very much noted this fact in impugned order that victim Sanjeev Kumar Digitally _____________________________________________________________________ signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.16 MALIK Date:
2025.08.05 15:57:17 +0530 despite appearing in the court was not willing to get his statement recorded as was done by other victims. It is not the case where even victim raised any objection before ld. ACJM regarding the procedure adopted on the application of respondent no.2 for pleading guilty.
23. Therefore this court finds no illegality or impropriety in the order of ld. ACJM when other three co-accused persons have already been convicted albeit by adopting the procedure of plea bargaining. Fact remains that when similar quantum of sentence has been awarded to the respondent no.2 herein as was sentenced to other co-accused in their plea bargaining application and at that stage revisionist had no objection. Moreover prosecution has not lead evidence of even a single witness since the date of framing of charge, in such situation if ld. ACJM had concluded the proceedings on the plea of guilt of the accused and also ensuring the awarding of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to revisionist herein, there is no impropriety or illegality in the impugned orders.
24. Ld. Counsel for revisionist while relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad's case (supra), submitted that there was no prior inquiry or examining the facts and evidence, before awarding the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- by ld. ACJM. Hon'ble Apex Court in that case while interpreting the provisions of Section 357 Cr.PC, has laid down that it is mandatory for the criminal court to examine the question of compensation, while deciding any matter and to have an inquiry of relevant facts before determining the quantum of compensation. In the presence case also, ld. ACJM had taken note of the age of the SHELENDER MALIK _____________________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by SHELENDER MALIK Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.17 Date: 2025.08.05 15:57:23 +0530 accused, prolonged trial of the matter and the fact that when other co- accused persons were convicted in plea bargaining, more or less similar amount of compensation was awarded. This court finds that such taking of facts into consideration was as per law. Awarding of compensation needs to be just and proper. As such this court does not find any impropriety in the impugned orders. Accordingly revision petition stands dismissed.
25. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.08.05 15:57:27 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Shailender Malik) on 05.08.2025 Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI-21 RACC/New Delhi
_____________________________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.18