Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of sentence dated 16.1.2013 and 22.1.2013 respectively, the Petitioners preferred an appeal before the Delhi High Court on 15.2.2013.
On companypletion of investigation, the CBI filed a charge sheet on 16.1.2013, against various persons including Shri Sanjiv Kumar, IAS.
While the said inquiries were pending, Shri Sanjiv Kumar filed Writ Petition Criminal No.
P.C. was decided.
The learned Single Judge issued numberice on the matter on 21.2.2013.
The CBI also named the Petitioners herein as accused in the said case.
The Petitioners thereupon filed CS OS No.335/2013 before the Delhi High Court on 20.2.2013 for permanent injunction to restrain the Respondent from broadcasting telecasting the above mentioned television program on any media channel, including the Internet.
The main ground of challenge to the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 28.2.2013, is that the proposed telecast of the Episode Nos.214 215 of CRIME PATROL DASTAK, in which the dramatised version of JBT TEACHERS RECRUITMENT SCAM is to be broadcast, will have a prejudicial impact on the rights of the Petitioners who were entitled to a fair trial.
Since, he had resisted and did number succumb to such pressure, he was being unfairly targetted by the administration.
The petitioner number 3 was the Chief Minister of the State of Haryana from 1999 to 2005 and during his tenure 3206 Junior Basic Trained Teachers were recruited in the year 2000.
During that time, one Shri Sanjiv Kumar, IAS, was the Director, Primary Education, Government of Haryana.
P.C., seeking suspension of companyviction, sentence as well as for grant of interim bail.
Pursuant to such direction, the CBI registered a Preliminary Enquiry bearing No.
Along with the appeal, the Petitioners had also filed applications under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as Cr.
214 215 of CRIME PATROL DASTAK on 23 24.2.2013, in which a dramatized version of JBT Teachers Scam was to be presented.
Subsequently, the said Preliminary Enquiry was companyverted into RC 3 A /2004/ACU IX on 24.5.2004, under Section 120B read with Section 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
93/2003 before this Court, holding himself out to be a whistle blower and claiming that while he was functioning as Director, Primary Education, Haryana, he was pressurized into altering the lists for appointment of Junior Basic Trained Teachers.
From 2000 onwards, upon certain facts being brought to the knowledge of the Government of Haryana, several disciplinary and vigilance inquiries were initiated against the said Shri Sanjiv Kumar.
Thus, against the said judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, the present Special Leave Petition has been filed.
The trial of the case was companyducted by the learned Special Judge, Rohini, Delhi, who by his judgment and order dated 16.1.2013, companyvicted the Petitioners and the said Shri Sanjiv Kumar, IAS, amongst others and on 22.1.2013, sentenced the Petitioners to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment in respect of companyviction under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and for the period of 7 years of rigorous imprisonment in respect of Section 13 2 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
PE 1 A /2003/ACU IX dated 12.12.2003.
On the basis of the said Writ Petition, this Court on 25.11.2003, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation, hereinafter referred to as CBI, to inquire into the allegations made therein.
According to the Petitioners, the said summary is a clear misrepresentation of the facts.
An FIR was registered against him under Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The matter appears to be pending before the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court which issued numberice to the CBI on the appeal and the matter has been posted for further hearing.
During the pendency of the appeal before the Delhi High Court, the Petitioners and their family members came to learn that the Respondent was proposing to broadcast Episode Nos.
On 22.2.2013, the Respondent published an advertisement in the Times of India regarding broadcasting of the show wherein a summary of the episodes to be shown, was published.
The learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.2.2013, restrained the Respondent from broadcasting telecasting the said program till the application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of Cr.
119/2013 before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and after hearing the parties, the Division Bench by its judgment and order dated 28.2.2013, allowed the first appeal and set aside the order of injunction passed by the learned Single Judge.
On 23.2.2013, the Respondent filed FAO OS No.
ALTAMAS KABIR, C.J.I. The three petitioners before us are number detained in judicial custody in the Tihar Jail on being companyvicted under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
