Delhi High Court - Orders
Vikas Sabharwal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 18 March, 2024
$~66
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 231/2024
VIKAS SABHARWAL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. M. A. Niyazi and Mr.
Umesh Choubey, Advs.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj,
SPP for CBI with Mr.
Dhruv Kothari, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 18.03.2024 CRL.M.(BAIL) 438/2024 (suspension of sentence) in CRL.A. 231/2024
1. The present appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) challenging the judgment dated 19.01.2024 (hereafter 'impugned judgment') and the Order on Sentence dated 20.01.2024 (hereafter 'impugned order'), passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi in Case No. 334/2019.
2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. By the impugned order, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment along with the payment of fine of ₹25,000/- and in default further simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the CRL.A. 231/2024 Page 1 of 4 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 19/03/2024 at 01:08:49 appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case.
4. He submits that the co-accused who had allegedly made the demand, has been acquitted. He further submits that there are major discrepancies in the prosecution's case.
5. He submits that the FIR was registered on a complaint dated 28.11.2018, where the complainant alleged that he had got a phone call from co-accused, Rajesh Ojha. It is alleged that on the call being received, the complainant went to the audit party, where he met the present appellant, who informed the complainant that the rent receipts submitted by the him were found to be forged and demanded a sum of ₹10,000/- to help the complainant. When the complainant stated that he will not be in a position to pay ₹10,000/-, the appellant told the complainant to at least pay a sum of ₹5,000/-.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution relies upon a transcript of the conversation admittedly held on 29.11.2018. He submits that from the perusal of the transcript, it is apparent that the appellant met the complaint for the first time on 29.11.2018.
7. He further relies upon the deposition of the complainant where he admits that the original demand of the sum of ₹10,000/- was made by the co-accused and not the appellant.
8. He submits that in such circumstances, the entire story of the prosecution is doubtful.
9. He further submits that during the course of trial, the appellant was on bail and has never misused the liberty and the appellant is the sole earning member in the family consisting of one daughter of marriageable age, a son who is studying in Class XII and a housewife.
10. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the CRL.A. 231/2024 Page 2 of 4 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 19/03/2024 at 01:08:49 fine imposed by the learned Trial Court has already been paid.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that the role assigned to the appellant by the Department, did not include Income Tax calculation whereas the document relied upon by the prosecution includes the work in relation to the Income Tax calculation. He submits that the said document is unsigned.
12. Prima facie, there are certain discrepancies in the evidence as produced by the prosecution.
13. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence brought on record shows that the complainant met the appellant for the first time on 29.11.2018. However, the complaint which was given a day earlier alleges that the appellant is the person who demanded a sum of ₹10,000/- from the complainant.
14. The matter requires consideration. The appeal is not likely to be heard in near future.
15. Considering the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 20.01.2024 is suspended during the pendency of the present appeal and the appellant is admitted on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹20,000/- subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court on the following conditions:
a. The appellant shall furnish a proof of residence, where he shall be residing, before the learned Trial Court and incase of any change in address he shall inform the same to the learned Trial Court; b. The appellant shall, under no circumstance, leave the country without the permission of the learned Trial Court;
c. The appellant shall, appear before this Court as and CRL.A. 231/2024 Page 3 of 4 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 19/03/2024 at 01:08:50 when directed.
16. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
CRL.A. 231/2024 & CRL.M.A. 8141/2024
17. For the reasons mentioned, the appeal is admitted.
18. Issue notice.
19. The learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice.
20. List in due course.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J MARCH 18, 2024 'KDK' CRL.A. 231/2024 Page 4 of 4 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 19/03/2024 at 01:08:50