NISHI KANT Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that substantially on law and facts, all cases are similar and hence, they can be decided by a common order.

(2.) With the consent given by the learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to decide all the matters by this common order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised certain loaded submissions. He has contended that once all other accused have been discharged and the revisional Court below has held that 120B IPC charge cannot be pressed against the petitioner in isolation, petitioner should be discharged qua offence under Sec. 420 IPC.

(3.) Though the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner said to be pertinent, look attractive at the first instance, I have my own doubts, as to how the co-accused of the petitioner have been discharged by the trial Court. The trial Court was more swayed with sympathy toward the students. The trial Court considering that the students are of young age, upon misplaced equity, discharged the accused. Central Bureau of Investigation being a prosecuting agency ought to have assailed the order by filing a revision. For a good period of three years, no revision has been preferred. Thus, the order of discharge has attained finality. The students who have been discharged are not before this Court. Hence, this Court cannot disturb the order of discharge.