GIRDHIR LAL MOHTA Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned order of 6th September, 2013 petitioners have been summoned as accused in R.C. No.AC2/2010/A0001/ACU-II/CBI/ New Delhi, for the offences under Sections 120-B/420/511/468/471 of the IPC and under Sections 15 & 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of corruption Act, 1988. Since the above captioned three petitions are directed against common impugned order and as the challenge to the impugned order in these three petitions is on identical grounds, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these three petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Petitioners in the above-captioned first two petitions are the Directors of M/S Prakash Industries Ltd. (henceforth referred to as the accused-company) whereas petitioner of above-captioned third petition is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the aforesaid Company. In the original charge-sheet, there are allegations of forgery and of use of forged documents while making application on behalf of accused company for allocation of additional coal block. As per the charge-sheet filed, application and documents for allocation of additional coal block was signed by A.K. Chaturvedi as President (Corporate Affairs) and Constituted Attorney of the accused company. In the charge-sheet (Annexure- C), accused company has been prosecuted through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director. Now vide impugned order, petitioners in their individual capacity have been summoned as accused to stand the trial in this RC case after filing of the supplementary charge-sheet (Annexure-I).

(3.) Challenge to the impugned order by learned senior counsel for petitioners is on the ground that no material has surfaced in the supplementary charge-sheet warranting taking of cognizance for the offence in question with the aid of Section 120-B of the IPC against petitioners and the impugned order proceeds on conjectures. It was next contended on behalf of petitioners that no role has been attributed to the petitioners either in the first charge-sheet or the second charge-sheet to connect them even indirectly with the commission of offences in question. Learned senior counsel for petitioners had contended during the course of arguments that if any fresh material comes on record during the recording of evidence, then trial court can summon petitioners as accused but not amidst trial. It was pointed out that deposition of three prosecution witnesses has been recorded till date and no fresh material has come in their depositions to justify summoning of petitioners as accused in this RC case.