J.P. RANGA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated two revision petitions, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition, particularly when the 2nd case was ordered to be heard with the 1st case, vide order dated 23.12.2011. However, the relevant facts, which need a necessary mention for deciding the petitions, have been extracted from CRR No.1179 of 2010 titled as J.P. Ranga Vs. CBI (1st case) in subsequent portion of this judgment for ready reference in this context.

(2.) Tersenessly, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions and emanating from the record, are that a criminal case was registered against petitioner J.P.Ranga son of Sadhu Ram and his six others co-accused, by means of FIR, bearing Crime No.34 dated 8.8.2002 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sec. 120-B read with Sections 420, 409 Penal Code and 13(1)(c) (d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short "the CBI"). During the course of investigation, the CBI found all the accused (except the petitioner) innocent, did not challan them and final police report in terms of Sec. 173 Cr.PC was submitted only against the petitioner in the court.

(3.) Having completed all the codal formalities, the petitioner was accordingly charge sheeted for the indicated offences and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution/CBI by the Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh. After examining all the material witnesses, the CBI closed its evidence and the case was listed for defence evidence. Meanwhile, the petitioner moved an application (Annexure P3) under section 319 Cr.PC for summoning the remaining accused to face trial alongwith him on the ground of their involvement in the crime as per the allegations of the FIR. The prayer of the petitioner was refuted by the CBI on the ground that the application has been mala fidely filed in order to delay the disposal of already matured case. The application was dismissed by the Special Judge, vide impugned order dated 2.3.2010.