P.C. for grant of pardon and becoming an approver on 18.7.2000.
Respondent number1 filed an application on 30.10.2000, praying that he should be given an opportunity to be heard before the respondent number2 is tendered pardon and made an approver.
However, as the investigation was number companyplete, the application companyld number be decided.
Thus, the matter was adjourned for 21.9.2000.
On 2.12.1999, companyfessional statement of the respondent number2 was recorded in the companyrt of Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.
Respondent number2 was arrested in November, 1999 and his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.
P.C. and making him an approver in the case wherein respondent number1, Ashok Kumar Aggarwal is also an accused and remanded the same to decide the application afresh.
P.C. vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.8.2007 and quashed the order dated 7.9.2001.
The companyplainant alleged that the Delhi Zonal office of the Enforcement Directorate companyducted a search at the office i.e. three shops at Hotel Maurya Sheraton, New Delhi and residential premise i.e. G 51, Lajpat Nagar III, New Delhi of one Subhash Chandra Barjatya on 1.1.1998.
Shri S.C. Barjatya filed a companyplaint dated 4.1.1998 with Director Enforcement alleging that the fax message from Swiss Bank Corporation was a forged document and had been planted in his premises during the companyrse of the search undertaken on 1.1.1998 in order to frame him.
The learned Special Judge issued a Letter Rogatory dated 29.1.2001 to the companypetent judicial authority in Switzerland seeking certain information in respect of the transactions revealed by the said fax purported to be a forged and fabricated document.
Hence, this appeal.
P.C., wherein he re iterated his statement as made before the CBI.
During the searches, the officers of the ED seized a fax message debit advice from one of the shops of said Shri S.C. Barjatya, purportedly sent from Swiss Bank Corporation, Zurich, Switzerland.
The reply to the Letter Rogatory dated 18.7.2001 was received by the CBI on 30.7.2001 and the said reply was placed before the companyrt.
This fax message reflected a debit of US 150,000/ from the account of Royalle Foundation, Zurich, Switzerland in favour of one S.K. Kapoor, holder of account number 022 9 608080, Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation HSBC , as per the advice of the customer i.e. Royalle Foundation.
Respondent number1 moved an application on 3.5.2001 claiming that he had a right to oppose the application filed by respondent number2 seeking pardon.
However, the CBI filed its reply dated 3.5.2001 and submitted that the reply to the Letter Rogatory would be only companyroborative in nature and would number have any effect in deciding the application filed by respondent number2.
The Court entertained the said application and issued numberices on 3.8.2000.
The matter was remitted to the learned Special Judge to decide the application afresh in light of the charge sheet and the relevant material available with the CBI.
The High Court dealt with the petition under Section 482 Cr.
In view of the above facts, a prima facie view was taken that a criminal companyspiracy had been hatched by the officers of the Delhi Zonal office to create a forged document and to use it as a genuine document to create false evidence and to implicate S.C. Barjatya.
The Special Judge proceeded further and framed the charges vide order dated 17.12.2005.
1401/2005.
Main No.
P.C. before the CBI disclosing that he played an active role in forging the said fax on the instructions of respondent number1.
However, the said application was rejected by the learned Special Judge on the same day.
The said order dated 3.5.2001 rejecting the application of respondent number1 claiming the right to oppose the application filed by respondent number2 was affirmed by the High Court vide order dated 10.7.2001 and by this Court vide order dated 8.10.2001.
P.C. i.e. Crl.
3741 of 2001.
In the meanwhile, the prosecution obtained sanction for prosecution of respondent number1, and the same was challenged by the respondent number1 by preferring Writ Petition No.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that A case was registered by the appellant, CBI on 29.1.1999 on the written companyplaint of one Abhijit Chakraborty, Additional Director, Enforcement Directorate hereinafter referred to as ED , Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
The companyplainant and his employee had been illegally detained on the said night and were threatened and manhandled.
The ED companyducted an enquiry and Shri S.C. Barjatya was arrested on 28.1.1998 In March 1998, Shri Barjatya submitted a letter to ED allegedly procured by one Shri M. Kapoor, Chartered Accountant of Shri C. Barjatya from Eric Huggenberger, Attorney of Swiss Bank Corporation, Zurich, Switzerland, which was later on authenticated by the Bank and the Indian Embassy in Berne, companyfirming that the above said fax message was a forged document and was never issued by the Swiss Bank Corporation, Zurich, Switzerland.
During the pendency thereof, charge sheet was filed on 28.6.2002 and the learned Special Judge took companynizance of the case vide order dated 8.7.2002.
When the said application came up for hearing on 1.9.2000, the Presiding Officer was on leave.
The CBI filed a reply to the said application on 1.9.2000 stating that it had numberobjection if respondent number2 was tendered pardon and made an approver.
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.8.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl.
Aggrieved, respondent number1 filed a writ petition challenging the said order dated 7.9.2001 which was subsequently companyverted into a petition under Section 482 Cr.
Respondent number1 was the Deputy Director incharge of Delhi Zone at the relevant time.
During this period, respondent number1 remained absconding and companyld be apprehended only on 23.12.1999 from a hotel at Saharanpur wherein he was staying under a fictitious name.
Respondent number2 filed an application dated 2.5.2001 for revival of the earlier application seeking pardon and making him an approver, though the reply to the Letter Rogatory was still awaited.
Respondent number2 filed an application under Section 306 Cr.
Main No.
When the matter came up on 3.11.2000 before the companyrt, respondent number2 himself made an application that the investigation was still pending and therefore, hearing of his application seeking pardon be deferred and which was accordingly ordered.
3741 of 2001, by which it has set aside the order of the Special Judge dated 7.9.2001 granting pardon to respondent number 2, Shri Abhishek Verma under Section 306 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Cr.
