NIRMAL YADAV Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant criminal revision, the petitioner has impugned order dated 02.02.2013 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh in a case FIR No.RCAC22008A004 dated 28.08.2008, under Sections 11 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "PC Act"), Section 120 read with Sections 192, 196, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station CBI ACU-II, New Delhi, whereby an application filed under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") has been dismissed. However, liberty has been granted to the petitioner to inspect the record and prepare notes either in hand or through Stenographer.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is a retired Judge of the High Court. Initially an FIR No. 250 of 2008 was registered at Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh on the complaint of one Amrik Singh, Peon of the then Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur of this Court against Shri Sanjeev Bansal, Advocate, practising at Chandigarh, Sh. Ravinder Singh, resident of Delhi, Sh. Rajiv Gupta and Sh. Nirmal Singh, residents of Panchkula. Initially, the investigation was carried out by the Chandigarh Police. Thereafter, the Governor of Punjab and Administrator of UT, Chandigarh ordered transfer of the case to CBI which registered a separate FIR. CBI conducted the investigation in the matter. After completion of investigation, final report (Charge-sheet/Challan) has been submitted.

(3.) TO the said application, reply was filed by the CBI through Inspector of Police, Special CBI, AC-I, New Delhi. In the reply, it is averred that the application is not maintainable. Photostat copies of the record cannot be supplied. Liberty was already granted to the petitioner by the Trial Court to inspect the record and prepare notes either in hand or through Stenographer. It is further averred in the reply that as per Section 173 of the Code, only the documents relied upon by the prosecution in the final report can be supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to other documents. It is also submitted that order dated 10.09.2012 passed in SLP whereby liberty has been granted to the petitioner to raise all the objections before the Trial Court does not purport to alter the scheme of trial under the Code, much-less it cannot be construed like that. The prayer for supply of photocopies is, however, wholly without precedent, it has no authority and rather is unwarranted by the provisions of law.