Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Instant are quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C filed by accused persons Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss (Accused No. 3), Dr. K.K. Agarwal (Accused No. 1) and K.V.S. Rao (Accused No. 2) and Criminal Revision petitions under section 397 Cr.P.C. filed by CBI against accused persons Dr. Vindu Amitabh (Accused No. 4) and Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Rasania (Accused No. 5). All these petitions are arising from impugned order dated 07.10.2015 in CBI Vs. K.K. Agarwal & Ors. vide CC No. 03/14 passed by Special Judge (PC ACT) CBI-01, Patiala House Court arising out of FIR RC No. RC0062-2010-0A-0014 CBI/ACB/LUCKNOW under Sections 120B, 420, 471 Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act. The said FIR was registered for taking action against all the 5 Accused persons and summoning them to face trial for the commission of the aforesaid offences.

5. Subsequently, Ld. Special Judge vide order dated 07.10.2015 framed charges against Dr. Anbumani , Dr. K.V.S. Rao and Dr. K.K. Agarwal under Section 120B IPC read with 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act and Section 420/468/471 IPC. Furthermore, Anbumani Ramadoss and K.V.S. Rao were also charged for committing substantive offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Besides, Dr. K.K. Agarwal too was charged with substantive offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. However, accused Dr. Vindu Amitabh and Dr. Sanjiv Kumar Rasania were discharged.

16. Learned Senior counsel Mohit Gupta on behalf of Petitioner/ Accused No. 3 Anbumani Ramadoss has submitted that the Court below while passing the impugned order on framing of charge skipped the relevance of videography conducted by Central Team, same was seized by CBI. He further submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner Anbumani Ramadoss that he instructed anyone to commit any offence in the manner so prescribed.

17. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that proprietary demands that a junior officer must act strictly under the direction of his senior in any establishment. Therefore, inviting element of criminality is bad in law in absence of deliberate or conscious decision or act on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case, he was competent to grant permission on the basis of the note put and signed by the recommending authority and there is no evidence to connect the petitioner in commission of conspiracy. Moreover, there is no allegation CRL.M.C. Nos. 4443/2015, 4480/2015 & 688/2017 against the petitioner for misusing his official position for pecuniary gain. The facts of the present case shows that permission for renewal of third batch was given by him on the basis of unanimous note placed before him and he has not done anything which is contrary to the law.

35. The plea of the Petitioners/accused persons Anbumani Ramadoss, Dr. Keshav Kumar Agarwal and K.V.S. Rao is that there is no evidence against them and thus seeing invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to which CBI disagrees due to existence of available evidence on the record.

36. The CBI too has filed a revision petition against the discharged accused persons Dr. Vindu Amitabh and Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Rasania showing material evidence available on the record and thus charge them as well.