MUKESH SRIVASTAVA Vs. C.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant has put in appearance on behalf of the applicant today and has filed his Vakalatnama to which learned counsel Mohd. Khalid has no objection who has filed this 482 application. Consequently, I have heard Sri Srivastava on behalf of the applicant and Sri N.I. Jafari for the C.B.I.

(2.) The application runs in 77 paragraphs and in 75 paragraphs of the application justification has been sought to be made for interference and quashing of the proceedings on the ground that there is no evidence as against the applicant nor any material so as to charge sheet the applicant and prosecute him in the case in Special Case no.22 of 2014 relating to the NRHM Scam. The application for discharge has been rejected by the trial court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant before this court is stated to be the Controller of a firm M/s Medicine Time and in that capacity has allegedly aided and abetted the commission of the offences in which the suppliers and the other Government officials were involved. He submits that in the entire evidence collected there is no material so as to involve the applicant, and in the aforesaid background the application for discharge which has been dismissed by the trial court is founded on erroneous considerations which is also evident from the fact that the trial court itself has found the investigation to be incomplete and has issued directions for further investigation.