GURVINDER SINGH BHATIA Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENDER of pardon to the second respondent -herein in RC No. AC1/2011/A0001/CBI/ACU -1/New Delhi under Sections 120 -B of IPC read with Sections 7/8/9 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the trial court vide impugned order of 17th December, 2011 is assailed in this petition by petitioner, who is accused in the aforesaid RC case.

(2.) THE factual background of this case already stands noted in the impugned order and so, it needs no reproduction. Suffice it would be to note that there are three set of accused in the instant case. The bribe taker is accused -A.K. Srivastava, a government servant; the middleman is accused -B.L. Bajaj and the bribe givers are petitioner -accused - G.S. Bhatia and respondent No. 2 -accused - Bijay Mandhani. The relevant facts, which are necessary for the purpose of this petition as noticed in the impugned order, are as under: -

(3.) AT the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that it erroneously proceeds on the premise that while considering the tender of pardon, the extent of culpability of the approver is not to be seen and what is to be seen is that an offender does not go unpunished for lack of evidence. It was pointed out that trial court while taking cognizance of the offence in question had opined that sufficient evidence is available to summon the accused whereas in the impugned order, diametrically opposite stand is taken by trial court i.e. of there not being much direct evidence to establish various aspects of criminal conspiracy.