ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. S. C. B. LKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr Anurag Kumar Singh, counsel for C.B.I, Mr. Nirmal Kumar Pandey and Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, counsels for the State.

(2.) Under challenge is the order dtd. 3/8/2024 passed in Case No. 01A/2009, RC 4 (S)/2007, Under Sec. 120B r/w- 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., C.B.I./S.C.B. Lucknow, Pending In The Special Judicial Magistrate Pollution/C.B.I., Lucknow, C.B.I. Versus - Anil Kumar Srivastava and Order dtd. 5/11/2024 in Criminal Revision bearing No. 558/2024, Anil Kumar Srivastava Versus C.B.I.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that the first information report was lodged on 6/6/2007 under Sec. 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC against Rajendra Kumar @ Tinku and two unknown persons on the basis of letter no. 4616 dtd. 30/5/2007, by the then Registrar of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, whereafter, the matter was investigated by the C.B.I. and the chargesheet was filed on 26/12/2008 while, recording the statement of the witnesses and all concerned. The chargesheet was filed against Brijesh Kumar Verma and Anil Kumar Srivastava, the present applicant and subsequently, the chargesheet was challenged by the present applicant before this Court and an interim order was granted in his favour while staying the criminal proceedings against him, whereas, the trial proceeded against Brijesh Kumar Verma and he was convicted. Later on, a 482 petition was decided and the matter was relegated back to the trial court concerned to proceed with the trial. During course of trial an application under Sec. 33 of The Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1872') was moved by the applicant before the trial court, while making a prayer that the statement of Vijay Bahadur Singh (the then CBCID official) under Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. is relevant for proving in the subsequent judicial proceedings and therefore, his prayer may be allowed and his statement may be considered as an evidence so as a proof.