Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Charges were ordered to be framed against the accused vide order dated 14.10.87 passed by the then Special Judge, Delhi. Charges for the offences punishable U/s. U/s. 5(1)(c) r/w Section 5(2) of the Act, U/s. 5(1) (d) r/w 5(1)(2) of the Act and U/s. 467,468 and 477-A of the IPC were framed . The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and the prosecution was directed to produce its evidence.

15. During the course of the trial, an application U/s. 321 Cr.PC. was moved by Ld. PP alleging that the progress in the trial of this case has been very difficult as large number of witnesses remained posted abroad and only a few witnesses could be examined till the moving of the application in the year 2003. It was submitted that the oral and documentary evidence recorded so far has not been sufficient to establish the essential ingredients of the offence for which charges were framed against the accused. Some of the witnesses have turned hostile, while attendance of others could not be obtained without undue expenditure. It was stated that in three cases, the total amount involved was about Rs.26,000/- in all and it would be a great burden on the exchequer to procure attendance of the witnesses in the court and even if they are examined, case of the prosecution is not likely to be proved. The prayer of the CBI did not find favour with (CBI v. Tejinder Singh ) the Ld. Special Judge. The application was accordingly dismissed and the request was declined vide order dated 10.3.2003.

55. The learned Defence Counsel has taken me through the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. dated 24.4.2002 moved by the prosecution, seeking withdrawal of the case from prosecution against accused Tejinder Singh and has urged that the prosecution itself was very clear that no case at all is made out in respect of any of the offences for which charges have been framed against the accused and that is why this application was moved. It has been urged that though the request for withdrawal from prosecution was rejected by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 10.3.2003, yet the averments made in the application which are founded on facts of the case would show that the case of the prosecution is bound to fail for the reasons as mentioned in the application. It has been urged that no substantial evidence has been led by the prosecution in any of the three charge sheets after rejection of the application. Therefore, what was stated in the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C., on facts, has to be accepted which would clearly show that the accused is entitled to be acquitted in all the three cases.

56. On the other hand, it has been urged by the learned Sr. Public Prosecutor that once the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. was (CBI v. Tejinder Singh ) rejected, the averments made therein are of no consequences and the accused cannot take any advantage of it.

57. This is true that the averments made in the application were limited for the purpose of seeking withdrawal from the prosecution. I have already held above that case of the prosecution is not beyond doubt. The accused, however, can definitely rely and take advantage of certain factual averments made by the prosecution on the basis of the evidence produced by it during trial. I would, therefore, like to extract some of the paras of the application which would show that the prosecution itself was aware of the various weaknesses and doubts in the case of prosecution. Para 7 to para 17 of the application are extracted hereunder: