S.K. Tongia vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

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]

JUDGMENT

Signature Not Verified B.R. GAVAI, J. 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

dated 29th July 2019, by which the learned Single Judge of

the High Court set aside the order dated 7 th October 2015

passed by the Special Judge (PC ACT)/CBI – 01, New Delhi

District, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.

3. By the order dated 7th October 2015, the learned Special

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

aside the order dated 7th 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

Medical Council of India (MCI) on 20 th 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

judgment dated 29th 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;

27th July, 2022.

5