HARISH KUMAR CHAUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for calling for the records of the impugned F.I.R. registered by the C.B.I. dated 12.10.1998 being R.C.(S) 98/ N/No. as well as Charge -Sheet No. 1/99 dated 10.9.1999 and supplementary charge -sheet dated 7.3.2007 and to declare the S.T. No. 1230. of 2007 pending in the Court of 11th Additional Sessions Court -cum -CBI Court, Patna as illegal, void and bad in law.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that one Ajit Sarkar and two others were killed in course of indiscriminate firing on 14.6.1998 at 2.30 P.M. Furthermore one Ramesh Oraon, the bodyguard of Ajit Sarkar also sustained injuries. On the written statement of one Kalyan Chandra Sankar, K. Hat P.S. Case No. 230 of 1998 was registered under Section 302/34 and other allied sections of the Penal Code against five named accused persons and some unknown persons. On 20.9.1998 charge sheet was submitted under Sections 302, 307, 324, 326 and 120B of the Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against named accused persons and investigation was kept pending against 11 persons including this petitioner. On 28.9.1998 the Union of India issued notification under Section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Act, 1946 with consent of State of Bihar extending the powers and jurisdiction of the Members of the Delhi Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Bihar for investigation of offence of Case No. 230 of 1998 relating to murder ot late Ajit Sarkar, MLA. Pursuant to the aforesaid notification the Deputy Superintendent, CBI registered the instant case as R.C. Case incorporating the F.I.R. of K. Hat P.S. Case No. 230 of 1998 under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 120B of the Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. One Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav fiied Criminal Writ bearing Cr.W.P. No. 268 of 1999 before the Delhi High Court for quashing the notification dated 28.9.1998 which was dismissed. The Delhi High Court observed that C.B.I. is not disentitled to do further investigation of the matter, merely because in the first instance the investigation in respect of offence was carried out by the State Police and incomplete challan was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea. The Delhi High Court further observed that an accused cannot object to the Agency which is selected to further investigate the case. The C.B. I. after investigation filed Charge -Sheet No. 1/99 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Patna. On 16.7.1999 the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI took cognizance of offence as has been stated in paragraph 9 of the petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that on 15.9.1999 the Investigating Officer, CBI requested the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Patna to discharge the accused charge -sheeted by the local Police and to call for the records of the case from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea. He further submits that F.I.R. witnesses namely B.C. Sarkar, brother of Ajit Sarkar was not examined.