OM PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against order dated 26.11.96 passed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ' the Code').

(2.) The learned trial court has held that none of the documents sought to be summoned by the accused are of the nature which would show that the case of the prosecution was improbable or unworthy of trial and further that the summoning of these documents at this stage is merely with a view to delay the proceedings.

(3.) Briefly the facts are that the Delhi Police had arrested one Ashfaq Hussain Lone on 23.3.1991 in the area of Police Station Chandni Mahal, Delhi in connection with certain terrorist activities as from his possession 23 bank drafts payable to 22 persons in Kashmir Valley for Rs. 15.5 lakhs and a cash amount of Rs. 50,000.00 was recovered on 26.3.1991 at the instance of the accused Ashfaq Hussain and FIR No. 53/91 dated 25.3.91 was registered at Police Station Chandni Mahal, Delhi against him. During the course of investigation it was found that the abovementioned amounts were sent to the arrested accused by the expatriate Kashmiris living abroad through the hawala channel. One Shambhu Dayal Sharma and one Shahabuddin Ghauri were also arrested by the Delhi Police in that case. The investigation of the case was transferred to CBI on 20.4.1991 where RC 5(S)/91/SIU(V) was registered under Section 120-B IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short 'TADA Act') and Section 56 read with Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short 'FERA'). This case was being investigated by Special Investigation Cell-V of the CBI, New Delhi under the supervision of the petitioner, who was working as DIG, CBI, Special Investigation Cell-II, New Delhi. During the course of investigation of the said case residential and official premises of Shri Surinder Jain at Friends Colony and Masjit Moth and of his employee Shri Jainender Jain at G-36, Saket, New Delhi were searched on 3.5.91 under his supervision and he had also visited the house of Jainender Jain and during the search huge cash and incriminating documents were recovered and seized. The petitioner then during the course of investigation of the said case is alleged to have threatened Shri Surinder Jain and Jainender Jain on 3.5.1991 for involving them under the provisions of TADA. On this Shri Surinder Jain contacted a common friend, Shri L.K. Kaul on that day itself and requested him to contact the petitioner on their behalf and do the needful and avoid their threatened arrest/involvement. The said Shri L.K. Kaul met the petitioner at his residence on 4.5.91 and the petitioner demanded some amount as illegal gratification as consideration for not so implicating and arresting these two persons and in part compliance of the said demand a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was paid by Shri Kaul to the petitioner in instalments during May and June, 1991. In the process, Shri L.K. Kaul recorded the telephonic conversation which took place between him and Surinder Jain on the one hand and the petitioner on the other. Then Shri Kaul had lodged a complaint on 10.6.91 which was registered by the CBI as FIR No. RC CBI/SIU/SIU/IX under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'POCA'). A raid was arranged and on 16.6.1991 at about 1900 Hrs. the petitioner reiterated his further demand of Rs. 10 lakhs from Mr. Kaul on telephone and then a raid was laid at the residential premises of the petitioner at K-7/3, Multistoreyed flats, Sector-XIII, R.K. Puram New Delhi at about 2040 hrs. on 16.6.1991 when the petitioner again made demand and accepted from Mr. Kaul the bribe amount of Rs. 10 lakhs and after so accepting came out of his flat alongwith Mr. Kaul. Mr. Kaul gave the prescribed signal to the raiding CBI party and the petitioner on noticing the raiding party ran inside his house and bolted the door and threw the bag containing the bribe money down. The door was broken open and the bag containing the bribe amount was recovered from the balcony of the lower flat which was seized. The petitioner was arrested. After investigation the petitioner has been chargesheeted for the aforesaid offences. On being summoned, inter alia, he filed the present application in February, 1996 under Section 91 of the Code for summoning and production of certain documents. The learned trial court did not find these documents relevant and necessary at this stage and rejected this application. The petitioner has come in revision against the said order of rejection.