RAKESH MITTAL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 19.07.2018 passed by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, C.B.I., Dehradun in C.B.I. Case No.3 of 2006, C.B.I. vs. P.D. Raturi, whereby the application (paper no.475b) moved by the revisionist u/s 311 of Cr.P.C, to recall and re-examine the witness PW1 Mr. S.K. Das and the application (paper no.464b) moved by the revisionist u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. to summon respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, as accused persons, have been dismissed.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that CBI/SPF/Dehradun registered FIR No.RC0072003A0018 under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 471 and 477 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) as well as u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the revisionist and some others, on the basis of written complaint dated 18.11.2003 moved by Mr. O.P. Tiwari, the then under Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of Uttaranchal, Dehradun. The gravamen of the allegations are that in order to recruit 253 Sub Inspector in the Civil Police/Intelligence/PAC of Uttaranchal Police, the State Government had set up an Interview Board by its order dated 22.07.2002 with the DGP/ADG, Police Uttaranchal as Chairman, 3 officers of IG/DIG level as members and representatives of the District Magistrate of Nainital and Dehradun. The final results of the selection examination were declared on 06.10.2002. On 20.09.2003, it was informed by DGP Uttaranchal to the Government that there are certain discrepancies in the marks of the written examination of seven candidates. On a prima facie comparison of the marks secured by the candidates (as per the records of the Uttaranchal Police and the marks obtained by the Department from the IIT, Roorkee), it was found that seven candidates having the Roll Nos.11422, 11424, 11427, 31883, 30270, 30838 and 31542, who had qualified in the final examination, were shown as having received 479, 484, 494, 548, 439, 394, 444 marks in the written examination whereas they were actually awarded 472, 474, 488, 448, 424, 374, 424 marks respectively by the IIT Roorkee. Out of these seven candidates, two candidates had been awarded odd marks viz. 479 and 439 which was not possible, because every written question carried 2 marks each and there was no provision for negative marking. The matter was investigated and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the CBI against the revisionist Rakesh Mittal, the then Additional Director General of Police Uttaranchal and respondent no.5 Prem Dutt Raturi, the then Director General of Police, after requisite sanction for prosecution. During trial, revisionist filed application u/s 319 Cr.P.C before the trial court on 02.01.2018, stating that the C.B.I. has mentioned the name of respondent no.2-Mr. Alok Bihari Lal, then Inspector General of Police (Karmik), Uttaranchal as a witness in this case. But, the evidence collected by the CBI and the witnesses (PW1 to PW10) deposed before the learned trial court clearly point out that tempering in the marks of some candidates in floppy containing the written marks of all the short listed candidates was done by respondent no.2 with the help of his trusted person namely Mr. G.C. Pant, the then State Radio Officer, Uttaranchal (respondent no.4 herein) and the motive of the crime of respondent no.2 was to cook up a criminal case for implicating the revisionist (who was senior to respondent no.2 and would retire at the same time i.e. 31.12.2011, as respondent no.2) so that he would be appointed Director General of Police, Uttaranchal. It is also contended that respondent no.2 did this crime with immunity with the association of respondent no.5 Mr. P.D. Raturi, the then DGP, Uttaranchal and respondent no.3 Mr. Surjit Kumar Das, the then Principal Secretary (Home), Uttaranchal. Reply/objections were submitted by the C.B.I. against the application. On the application, trial court fixed 28.02.2018 for the arguments of the respective parties. On 28.02.2018, revisionist moved another application u/s 311 of Cr.P.C., thereby praying to recall and re-examine Mr. S.K. Das, PW-1. Learned trial court, after hearing the parties, rejected the application moved u/s 311 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that no specific questions have been mentioned in the application, regarding which the applicant seeks to get the witness PW1 recalled and re-examined, and further that the application has been filed with the delay of three years wherefor no explanation has been given. On the application moved u/s 319 of Cr.P.C., the trial court observed that prima facie from the material available on record and the evidence adduced before the court, no complicity of either Mr. S.K. Das, Mr. A.B. Lal or Mr. G.C. Pant, comes out in connection with the commission of the offence in the present matter. Both the altered and unaltered data was found in the laptop of the revisionist himself. Accordingly, application u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. was also dismissed.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.