S S AHLUWALIA Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions by S.S. Ahluwalia and his brother Inderjit Singh are directed against the order on the point of charge dated 23rd February, 2008 passed by the Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI, for short). It has been held in the impugned order that a case is made out for framing of charges against the two petitioners under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) read with Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with Sections 5(1)(e) and 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as PC Act for short). Substantive charges against S.S. Ahluwalia have also been framed under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC as well as under Sections 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act.

(2.) The allegation is that during the check period 1st July, 1969 to 28th March, 1987, S.S. Ahluwalia, an officer of Indian Administrative Services, while working in Kohima/Nagaland and Delhi, had acquired assets worth Rs.67,96,601/- disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is also alleged against S.S. Ahluwalia that he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with Inderjit Singh, V. Bhaskaran (approver) and Nyamo Lotha (who has expired), at Kohima and Delhi and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy had committed several acts. Some of these acts have been discussed separately, while dealing with the petition of Inderjit Singh.

(3.) On behalf of S.S. Ahluwalia, it was submitted that the State of Nagaland by their letter dated 6th November, 1990 had withdrawn their general/open consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act for short) and, therefore, charges should not have been framed in respect of the alleged acts/offences relating to the State of Nagaland. Reference was made to the decision dated 1st February, 1991 in C.W.No. 1844/1998, filed by the petitioner S.S. Ahluwalia, which is reported in 1991 Crl.L.J. 2583. It was submitted that this decision operates as res judicata. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in H.N. Rishbud and Another Vs. State of Delhi,1955 AIR(SC) 198, learned counsel for the petitioner S.S. Ahluwalia, had submitted that 'investigation' includes formation of opinion by the police/prosecution as to whether on the material collected, there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial by filing charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code for short). Reference was made to Section 2(h) of the Code, which defines investigation, and observations in paragraph 5 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in H.N. Rishbud (supra), which read:-