Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1051 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9567 of 2019]
S.K. TONGIA APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1053 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 10342 of 2019]
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1054 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 1798 of 2022]
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1055 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 729 of 2022]
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1056 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 9829 of 2019]
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1057 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 10015 of 2019]
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1058 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 10629 of 2019]
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by Dr.
Mukesh Nasa
Date: 2022.08.02
17:19:38 IST
Reason:
1. Leave granted.
1
2. The appellants have approached this Court being
aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court
th
dated 29 July 2019, by which the learned Single Judge of
th
the High Court set aside the order dated 7 October 2015
passed by the Special Judge (PC ACT)/CBI – 01, New Delhi
District, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
th
By the order dated 7 October 2015, the learned Special
3.
Judge had directed that charges be framed against five
accused for the offences punishable under Section 120B of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) read with
Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (for short “the PC Act”) and Sections 420, 465, 468
and 471 of the IPC. It had further directed the charges be
framed against some of the accused under Section 13(2) read
with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act as well as Sections 420,
465, 468 and 471 of the IPC. However, insofar as the present
appellants are concerned, the learned Special Judge had
discharged the accused persons.
4. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent–Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as well as the accused persons
against whom the charges were framed, filed revision
2
petitions before the Delhi High Court. By the impugned
judgment, the learned Single Judge of the High Court set
th
aside the order dated 7 October 2015 and directed the trial
court to hear the parties on merit afresh after duly supplying
the copy of videography of the inspection carried out by
th
Medical Council of India (MCI) on 20 October 2008, which
was subsequently seized by CBI, to all the accused persons.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants that though, by an elaborate order, the learned
trial court had found that no prima facie case was made out
against the appellants, the High Court however, without
assigning any reasons, has set aside the order discharging
them. They submit that if the order of discharge had to be
reversed, the least that was expected of the High Court was
to give reasons as to why it found error with the order of the
trial court and reasons as to why a prima facie case was
made out against the appellants.
6. Mr. S. V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General has
opposed the appeals. He submitted that by the impugned
judgment, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has
only remanded back the matter to the trial court. He
3
submitted that all these issues will be considered by the trial
court on remand, and as such, no prejudice will be caused to
the appellants. He further submitted that insofar as the
direction to supply the copies of videography in some of the
matters is concerned, no copy of videography is available in
some of the matters.
7. We have perused the impugned judgment. Though the
High Court has laboured to pen down a judgment of 66
paragraphs, there is no reasoning at all as to why it found
error with the order of the learned trial court discharging the
appellants. By the impugned judgment, a valuable right
which accrued in favour of the appellants of being
discharged, has been taken away without assigning any
reasons.
8. On this short ground, we find that the impugned
judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside.
9. In the result, we allow the appeals. The impugned
th
judgment dated 29 July 2019 is quashed and set aside. The
matters are remitted back to the High Court for considering
the matters afresh on merits and decide them in accordance
with law in light of the observations made hereinabove.
4
10. Insofar as the contention of the respondentCBI with
regard to unavailability of copies of videography in some
cases is concerned, the respondentCBI would be at liberty to
bring this fact to the notice of the High Court and the same
shall be considered in accordance with law.
11. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
.......................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
.......................................................J.
(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)
New Delhi;
th
27 July, 2022.
5