Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18 Accused Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav also examined himself as DW and deposed that before the investigations of case bearing RC No. 12(5). 98/SIC/IV/ND were handed to CBI the said investigations were being conducted by Purnia Police (Bihar) vide FIR No. 230/98, PS K Hatt, Distt. Purnia, Bihar. During the investigation of this case by Purnia Police he had received information through newspapers and electronic media that some landlord of Purnia were involved in the murder of Ajit Sarkar alongwith some other persons and there was no information regarding his involvement in the matter from any source nor he was involved. His name had also not come during the investigation. This was in the year 1997-98 and prior to this he had remained a Member of Parliament for two times i.e. between 1991 to 1996 and 1996 to 1997. He was not a member of Parliament during period i.e. December 1997 till 10.10.1999. After the matter was handed over to the CBI for investigations they had incorrectly stated that he was a CC No. 33/1: U/s 195 IPC r/w section 340 Cr.PC : PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 27.11.2014 Member of Parliament during the said period. During this period when he was not a Member of Parliament he used to frequently come to Delhi, and also used to visit Patna and Purnia to participate in his social and political activities. Since, he had strong political rivals who were averse to him were in the Government, he was falsely got implicated at their instance since earlier his name had never figured in the chargesheet filed by the Purnia police. The handing over of the investigation to the CBI was a political decision by the government with the sole aim of framing him in the Purnia case directly or indirectly. The information with regard to the handing over the case to CBI had been received by him only through the newspapers sources. It is in this background that he approached his advocate Sh. A K Bajpai in Delhi for requesting him to plead that the CBI should not investigate this case as he was fearful and apprehensive that the case has been handed over to the CBI investigation with the motive of framing him. Since the Purnia Police had already filed the chargesheet in 1998 where he has not been named and it was only because of this that he had asked his counsel Sh. Bajpai to file a petition against the CBI investigation. The entire petition had been drafted by Sh.A K Bajpai, Advocate. He had signed the petition reposing full faith on his advocate Sh. A K Bajpai and he had not signed the affidavit for purposes of giving evidence in any Court. At the time of filling of the affidavit and the petition he was resident of RZ-70, Vijay Park, Najafgarh,which was belonging to SH. S Prasad. The said person Sh. S Prasad had rented the said premises from some other person whose name he do not know. At the time, he was arrested from Patna by the CBI, he was at his residence at New Punai Chuk, near Pump House, Patna in ordinary course, he was relaxing after attending some meeting when the DSP CBI accompanied with 3 to 4 persons came and asked his father if he was at home to which he replied in affirmative. On being told that they wanted to see him, his father in normal course called him. When he met the DSP CBI, he was told by him that he was wanted in the aforesaid CBI case and they had come to arrest him. He had requested the said DSP that he was never informed about his involvement previously nor was any notice u/s 160 Cr.PC given to him nor was he called for interrogation at any time. He also told them that they should have given him notice u/s 160 Cr.PC and he would have joined the investigation, but he only told him that he had a warrant to arrest him so he accompanied him without any protest. He CC No. 33/1: U/s 195 IPC r/w section 340 Cr.PC : PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 27.11.2014 had initiated the legal proceedings in Delhi High Court on 26 th of March 1999 only on account of this apprehension of being falsely implicated. The criminal writ petition no.268/99 had been filed by him only under a bonafide belief of pursuing his legal remedies and he did not deliberately or intentionally make any incorrect statement or contention in the petition nor he concealed any material fact in the same. He was never an absconder and was always available to join the investigation, but he has never been serve to any notice, hence, there is no question of suppression of any material fact. The present complaint has been sent by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court only for the purpose of inquiry into the correctness of the claims and counter claims made before the Delhi High Court by himself or by the CBI. The CBI did not place the correct fact before the Delhi High Court and this present complaint has been sent by the Delhi High Court only for the inquiry for the correctness of the said case.

"We should make it clear that when the trial of the appellant commences under section 193 IPC the reasons given in the main judgment of the High Court or those in the order passed under section 340 (1) Cr.P.C. should not weigh with the criminal court in coming to its independent conclusion whether the offence under section 193 IPC has been fully established against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It will be for the prosecution to establish all the ingredients of the offence u/s 193 IPC against the appellant and the decision will be based only on the evidence and the materials produced before the criminal court during the trial and the conclusion of the court will be independent of opinions CC No. 33/1: U/s 195 IPC r/w section 340 Cr.PC : PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 27.11.2014 formed by the High Court in the habeas corpus proceeding and also in the enquiry under section 340 (1) Cr.P.C.

30 The first argument submitted on behalf of accused that Hon'ble High Court while exercising extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under its constitutional authority CC No. 33/1: U/s 195 IPC r/w section 340 Cr.PC : PS Subzi Mandi DOD: 27.11.2014 and jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India is not ordinarily maintainable at all u/s 340 Cr.PC. It is also argued that the complainant did not filed the present complaint as per the scheme of Section 340 Cr.PC. Hence, complaint itself is not maintainable. It is also argued that four charges u/s 181/182/193 r/w Section 199 IPC and u/s 199 IPC. were framed against the accused without applying its mind by Ld. ACMM to the mandatory provisions of Section 195 Cr.PC and procedure laid down u/s 340 Cr.PC.

32 So far as the other argument that there was no proper authorization in favour of Ld. Registrar General, High Court of Dehli by Court to file the present complaint. Sub Clause 3 of Section 340 Cr.P.C. Speaks-A complaint under this section shall be signed:- (a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint. In the present case, there were specific directions to Ld. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi to file a complaint. Hence, I also find not substantiate in this argument also. Moreover by virtue of Rule 2 of Chapter 3 part 'C' of High Court Rules the Registrar had been delegated the powers to sign complaints under clause 'a' of Sub section '3' of Section 340 Cr.P.C.