Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.948 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5112 of 2018)
Srilekha Sentilkumar ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI,
ACB, Chennai ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final
judgment and order dated 04.05.2018 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHOK RAJ SINGH
Date: 2019.07.01
17:12:34 IST
Reason:
Revision Petition No.445 of 2018 whereby the Single
1
Judge of the High Court dismissed the criminal
revision petition filed by the appellant herein and
affirmed the order dated 05.02.2018 of the XII
Additional Special Judge for CBI cases at Chennai
in Crl.M.P. No.5662 of 2014 in C.C. No.15 of 2014.
3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the
disposal of this appeal which involves a short point.
4. The appellant herein is arrayed as accused
No.3 in C.C. No.15 of 2014 pending in the Court of
XII Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai.
The appellant is facing trial for commission of the
offences punishable under Section 120B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 7, 12
and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act”) along with 6
other accused persons.
2
5. The appellant (A3) filed an application (Crl.
M.P. No. 5662/2014) before the Additional Special
Judge for CBI cases at Chennai under Section 239
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) in the aforementioned
pending trial for her discharge from the case on the
grounds stated in the application. The Additional
Special Judge for CBI cases, by order dated
05.02.2018, dismissed the appellant's application.
The appellant felt aggrieved and filed criminal
revision petition in the High Court at Madras. By
impugned order, the Single Judge of the High Court
dismissed the appellant's criminal revision petition
and affirmed the order dated 05.02.2018 of the
Additional Special Judge for CBI cases giving rise to
filing of this appeal by way of special leave in this
Court by the appellant (A3).
3
6. So, the short question, which arises for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the Courts
below were justified in dismissing the appellant's
application filed by her under Section 239 of the
Cr.P.C. praying for her discharge from the case.
7. Heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee,
learned ASG for the respondent.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to dismiss this appeal with observations
made infra .
9. Though Mr. Kabil Sibal, learned senior
counsel, argued the issues arising in the case in
support of his submissions with subtlety and
vehemence but having heard him at length, we are
of the view that all the issues urged by him need to
4
be tried on merits in the trial after evidence is
adduced by the parties.
10. In other words, we are of the view that the
issues urged by the appellant and the same having
been refuted by the respondent are such that they
can be decided more appropriately and properly
during trial after evidence is adduced by the parties
rather than at the time of deciding the application
made under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.
11. It is for this reason, we have refrained
ourselves from mentioning the facts of this case in
detail nor we wish to discuss much less to record
any finding on the issues urged else any observation
or/and finding made by this Court while deciding
this matter at this stage would cause prejudice to
the parties concerned while facing the trial on
5
merits. Needless to say, parties will be at liberty to
raise all such pleas on facts and law in the trial.
12. Before parting, we consider it proper to make
clear that the Additional Special Judge for CBI
cases will decide the matter strictly on the basis of
evidence adduced by the parties without being
influenced by any of the observations made by the
Additional Special Judge in his order dated
05.02.2018 and the High Court in the impugned
order.
13. With these observations, this appeal fails and
is accordingly dismissed.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
....……..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
July 01, 2019.
6