Allahabad High Court
G.C. Gupta Son Of Shri Mahesh Chandra ... vs State Of U.P. And Central Bureau ... on 26 May, 2005
JUDGMENT R.C. Deepak, J.
1. The applicant-accused G.C. Gupta has filed this criminal miscellaneous writ petition for the quashing of the order dated 19.3.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ghaziabad and the entire criminal proceedings in special case no. 13 of 2004 C.B.I. v. G.C. Gupta and Ors. arising out of case crime no. RC-5(A) / 2002 DAD under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. I have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.S. Hajela, learned counsel for C.B.I. and perused the record.
3. The learned counsel for the parties have cited the following case laws in support of their contentions :
Case Laws cited by learned Case Laws cited by learned counsel
counsel for the petitioner for C.B.I.
1. (2001) 1 S.C.C. page 378 1. 2003 S.C.C. (Crl.) page 762
Saju v. State of Kerala Sadhana Lodh v. National
Insurance Company Ltd. and
Anr.
2. 1988 S.C. page 1883 2. 2002 S.C.C. (Crl.) page 539
Kehar Singh and Ors. v. The State of Karnataka v. M
State (Delhi Administration) Devendrappa and Anr.
3. 1998 (A.I.R.) S.C. page 128 3. 2002 S.C.C. (Crl.) page 39
Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. Satya Narayan Sharma v. State
v. Special Judicial Magistrate of Rajasthan
and Ors.
4. 2003 (A.I.R.) S.C. page 1386
B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State
of Haryana and Anr.
5. A.I.R. 1992 S.C. page 604
State of Haryana and Ors.
v. Chaudhary Bhajanlal and
Ors.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically argued that the evidence on record does not show the complicity of the petitioner In the alleged offence, as he approved the proposal in routine manner after it was forwarded to him by the Assistant Manager.
5. Contrary to the above submission, the learned counsel for C.B.I, has vehemently argued that the misappropriation of huge amount of money of the Corporation in the name of 11 fictitious persons cannot be possible without the participation of the top of the pross in the Management.
6. The facts of the present case expose the synister racket prevailent in the system of L.I.C. by which the Corporation seems to have been robbed of substantial money of the public.
7. A perusal of what has been categorically mentioned in the F.I.R. and what has been described in the charge-sheet after investigation by an independent authority (C.B.I.) it can unhesitatingly expressed without prejudice to the merits of the case in any manner whatsoever particularly at this stage that it cannot be conclusively concluded that whatever has been alleged by the applicant-accused is correct specially when the case is based on documentary evidence which cannot be looked into in order to arrive at its correctness or otherwise the case laws cited by the parties in my opinion cannot be applied or appreciated at this stage.
8. In view of the discussions made above, the petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.