Gujarat High Court
Anil Kumar Maharaj Kishan Bhatia vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 26 June, 2023
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
R/CR.RA/736/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 736 of 2023
==========================================================
ANIL KUMAR MAHARAJ KISHAN BHATIA
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PREM CHHETRI, ADVOCATE FOR SINGHI & CO(2725) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 26/06/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Mr. Prem Chhetri, learned advocate appearing for Singhi and Company for the applicant says that the applicant is a banker who is arrayed as an accused in RC No. 08/E/2017/CBI, BS & FC, Mumbai and applicant has sought for documents under section 91 read with 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which came to be rejected by order dated 08.06.2023 below Exh. 92 by Special Judge, CBI Court No. 2, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Prem Chhetri for the applicant submitted that applicant - accused no. 6 came to be chargesheeted for the offence under section 120-B read with Page 1 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 27 20:50:17 IST 2023 R/CR.RA/736/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2023 Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mr. Chhetri stated that Shri Srikanthan S. S/o Shri Srinivasan Chari, Manager in the same Indian Overseas Bank, charged for the same offence, was arrayed as accused No. 7. While no sanction to prosecute was granted to accused no. 7, however, the applicant being the Senior Management Grade Scale V, had functioned as Assistant General Manager in Indian Overseas Bank, Surat Branch from 24.09.2012 to 13.04.2014, qua the applicant, sanction to prosecute was granted by sanction order No. DO:GM(RKS) : DA:VIG:2734:2018-19 dated 20.07.2018 (D-
680) while sanction for prosecution of Shri Srikanthan S. S/o Shri Srinivasan Chari (Accused No. 7) was declined vide order No. DO:VIG:GM(RKS): DA:9379:9521:2018-19 dated 09.08.2018 (D-681).
3. Learned advocate Mr. Chhetri for the applicant further submitted that before the trial court, prayer was made for the following documents : -
(i) List of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits which has been seized by Investigating officer during investigation however not relied on;Page 2 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 27 20:50:17 IST 2023
R/CR.RA/736/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2023
(ii) Statements of all accused who have been charge- sheeted or not charge-sheeted in present case.
(iii) Statements of all witnesses whose name is mentioned in list of witnesses.
(iv) Draft sanction order for prosecution supplied by CBI to Indian Overseas Bank to accord sanction for prosecution against Anil Kumar Maharaj Krishan Bhatia/accused no.6;
(v) SP Report/Brief Note alongwith documents sent to Competent Authorities as per Chapter 19.2, 19.14 and 19.20 of Central Bureau of Investigation (Crime) Manual;
(vi) Letter No DPBSM 2017/ 4055/ RC/BSM/2017/E/0008 dated 22.12.2017 with all enclosures sent by CBI Mumbai to Vigilance Department, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Chennai, seeking sanction for prosecution of Anil Kumar Maharaj Krishan Bhatia/accused no.6 under PC Act, in connection. with the case CBI-SPCC/8/2018 (RCNo.08/E/ 2017/CBI, BS&FC MUMBAI);
(vii) First reply of Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Chennai to the CBI letter No DPBSM 2017/ 4055/ RC/BSM/ 2017/E/0008 dated 22.12.2017.
(viii) Other letters from 22.12.2017 to 21.07.2018 exchanged between Indian Overseas Bank Central Office, Chennai and CVC / CBI Mumbai pertaining to sanction for prosecution of Anil Kumar Maharaj Krishan Bhatia/accused no.6.
(ix) Letter of Appointment of Competent Authority to accord sanction for prosecution alongwith Notes of Appropriate Authority wherein decision was taken for his appointment as Competent Authority of Anil Kumar Maharaj Krishan Bhatia/accused no.6.
(x) Circular/Rules and Regulations of Indian Overseas Bank wherein General Manager is Competent Authority for granting of Sanction for Prosecution of Scale 5 Officer (AGM) of Indian Overseas Bank.
4. Mr. Prem Chhetri, learned advocate submitted that those Page 3 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 27 20:50:17 IST 2023 R/CR.RA/736/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2023 documents are necessary since the applicant while preferring the discharge application, would be in need of all those documents since the discrimination is found on the face of the record as prayer to prosecute to accused no. 7 was declined, while the same was granted against the present applicant. The list of documents and statements which the prosecution relies on, would be provided to the accused, however, there may be certain documents and statements which the Investigating Officer may place his hand during the course of inquiry and investigation which would be exculpatory in nature and those documents would be relevant for the accused to rely upon, so as to show the Court to discharge him from the trial.
5. Mr. Chhetri, learned advocate has referred to the business of the City Civil Court on 19.01.2023 and as per the daily status, the learned Public Prosecutor Shri Ashutosh Tripathi had drawn attention of the Court regarding the original documents having been submitted by the Investigating Officer in 19 volumes (files) in purple coloured bag which was stated to be kept in Court Record Room, which at the relevant point of time, the Page 4 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 27 20:50:17 IST 2023 R/CR.RA/736/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2023 Investigating Officer had not submitted along with the production report and were not reflected in the rojnama nor were exhibited and thus the Public Prosecutor had sought accommodation to submit production report by the Investigating Officer. So for the verification of documents available in 1 to 19 volumes and for reply for the prosecution to the application under section 91 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused no. 6, the matter stood adjourned. The learned Judge while observing about the same in the order Para 35 had noted that those 19 volumes of original documentary evidence from CBI Court has been produced before the CBI and thus, did not find any justification in the submission that the original documents were not produced.
6. While referring to the paragraph 29 of the order, learned advocate Mr. Chhetri states that the learned Special Judge has observed that the certain documents have been returned to the concerned parties with the permission of the Court, however, no such order has been passed by the Court concerned and copy of those documents were not given to the accused. Page 5 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 27 20:50:17 IST 2023
R/CR.RA/736/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2023
7. Countering the said argument, learned Special Counsel Mr. R.C. Kodekar for the CBI has referred to the reply of Inspector of Police, CBI, BSFC, Mumbai wherein it is stated that on filing of the charge-sheet and additional documents (D-680 and D-581), the prosecution had relied upon 681 documents and 54 witnesses. Copies of the relied upon documents and witness statements have been provided to the accused by the Court, and therefore, it was urged that the application does not hold good.
8. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned, since the documents which have been relied, have been made a part of the charge-sheet and further additional documents have also been produced which were in about 19 volumes (Files) and the learned Special Judge having verified the documents, had allowed those documents to be produced before the CBI Court. The reference which has been made of returning the documents to the concerned parties with the permission of the Court, as in paragraph 29, does not find any context with the prayer made by the applicant and if at all the applicant is aggrieved, then he can challenge and pray for Page 6 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 27 20:50:17 IST 2023 R/CR.RA/736/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2023 those documents during the trial after the charges are framed and the trial Court is always at liberty to exercise the discretion by keeping in mind the rule of relevance in the context of the accused's right of defence and if the document or material does not have remote bearing to the defence, its production may be declined. This opportunity appears to have been granted to the accused and if such kind of prayers are made repeatedly and the Court considers that it is an attempt to delay, then it can decline the prayer.
9. The documents which have been part of the chargesheet have been placed on record, while further original documents were also placed before the Court in about 19 volumes (files) and those documents were perused by the Court and had been made part of the trial record. The entitlement of the documents could be found out during the course of the trial, when the relevant witnesses would be examined by the prosecution.
10. The proceedings dated 19.01.2023, rather clarifies that those documents which were not even relied upon by the Page 7 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 27 20:50:17 IST 2023 R/CR.RA/736/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2023 prosecution, but were kept in the Court Record Room, were also made part of the trial proceedings. Hence, nothing is kept in dark. All the relevant documents have come on record, and even if, those documents as observed in paragraph 29, have been returned back to the concerned parties with the permission of the Court, the accused during the course of trial, would have opportunity to draw attention of the Court regarding its relevancy in his defence and can call upon as and when necessary.
11. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Court below. The Criminal Revision Application stands rejected.
Direct service is permitted.
(GITA GOPI,J) AMAR SINGH Page 8 of 8 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 27 20:50:17 IST 2023