Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Filing The Petition) C.B.I vs Sh. Ravinder Singh & Ors on 17 February, 2022

Author: Mukta Gupta

Bench: Mukta Gupta

                              $~7
                              *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                              +      CRL.L.P. 63/2021
                                     CRL.M.A. 9755/2021 (for condonation of delay of 168 days in
                                     filing the petition)

                                     C.B.I.                                             .... Petitioner
                                                   Represented by:   Mr. Mridul Jain, Special PP for
                                                                     the CBI with Mr. Vishal
                                                                     Chauhan & Ms. Neha Goel,
                                                                     Advocates.
                                                        versus

                                     SH. RAVINDER SINGH & ORS.                    .......... Respondent
                                              Represented by: None.

                                     CORAM:
                                     HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
                                                   ORDER

% 17.02.2022 The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.

1. The petitioner/ CBI seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 23rd July, 2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, P.C. Act, CBI-11, Rouse Avenue District Court, Delhi, acquitting the respondents for offence punishable under Sections 420/468/471/477A /120-B IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI there was sufficient material on record to show that the contractor was to install Johnson Pipes in the reboring of the tubewells, however, on inspection the material used was found to be not of Johnson Pipes but of some local manufacturer, thus fake invoices were prepared to show that the said material was used.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA CRL.L.P. 63/2021 Page 1 of 2 Signing Date:18.02.2022 20:08:24

3. Issue notice to the respondents on the petitioner taking steps to be served through Dasti process, returnable before this Court on 22nd August, 2022.

4. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

FEBRUARY 17, 2022 vk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA CRL.L.P. 63/2021 Page 2 of 2 Signing Date:18.02.2022 20:08:24