R. N. AGARWAL versus R. C. BANSAL & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 1124 · Decided: 14-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2014] 14 S.C.R. 1124 
R. N. AGARWAL 
v. 
R. C. BANSAL & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2199-2201 of2014) 
OCTOBER 14, 2014 
[M. Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 319, 5, 209 
and 193 - Power to proceed against other persons appearing 
C to be guilty of offence - Charge-sheet filed by CBI before 
Special Judge against six persons, as regards offence of 
conspiracy- Order of summoning of six persons- Thereafter, 
application by accused before Special Judge for summoning 
of three more persons as accused, who had been cited by 
0 
CBI as witnesses - Special Judge pas_sed an order of 
summoning the prosecution witnesses as also directed CBI 
to register case against Investigating Officer for letting off 
these persons - Said order quashed by the High Court -
Sustainability of- Held: In terms of s. 5, the Special Judge 
may take cognizance of the offence without the accused being 
E committed to him for trial- On facts, the Special Judge issued 
summons against the witnesses after considering in detail 
the material brought on record during investigation - Thus, 
the order passed by the High Court quashing issuance of 
summons by the Special Judge against the witnesses not 
F 
sustainable - However, it was not necessary for the Special 
Judge to issue directions to CBI to register a case against 
the investigating officer. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1 After completion of investigation, CBI 
filed charge-sheet in the Court of Special Judge to deal 
with the cases in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 
as also under the Penal Code. The procedure and the 
powers of the Special Judge have been prescribed in 
H Section 5 of the said Act. A bare reading of the provision 
1124 
R. N.AGARWALv. R. C. BANSAL&ORS. 
1125 
would show that the Special Judge may take cognizance A 
of the offence without the accused being committed to 
him for trial and the court of Special Judge shall be 
deemed to be a court of session. The Special Judge in 
trying the accused persons shall follow the procedure 
prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for B 
the trial of warrant cases by the Magistrate. Indisputably, 
a person holding the post of either a Sessions Judge, 
Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge 
is appointed as Special Judge and shall follow the 
procedure prescribed in the Code for trial of warrant c 
cases. [Para 22, 23][1141-D-E; 1142-G-H; 1143-A] 
1.2. The order passed by the Special Judge would 
show that whi·le issuing summons against the 
respondents, the Court had considered in detail the 
material brought on record during investigation. D 
[Para 29][1147-B-C] 
1.3 While passing the impugned order, the High 
Court reversed the order passed by the Special Judge. 
Prima facie, therefore, the impugned order passed by 
the High Court quashing issuance of summons by the E · 
Special Judge against the respondents is erroneous in 
law and cannot be sustained. However, at this stage it 
was not necessary for the Special Judge to issue 
directions to CBI to get a case registered against 
the guilty officers who have investigated the case. F 
[Para 31][1150-8-C] 
· 
:Anirudh Sen v. State (2006) 3 JCC 2081 (Delhi); 
· Raj Kishore Prasad v. State .of Bihar 1996 
·. (2 ) Suppl. scR 125 : (1996) 4 sec 495 ; 
. Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana (2014) 3 sec 
•. ~06; Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab 2014 (2) 
•SCR 1 : (2014) 3 SCC 92 ; A.R. Antuley v. 
:Ramdas Srinivas Nayak 1984 (2) SCR 914 ; 
f1984) 2 SCC 500 ; Kishun Singh and Others v. 
G 
H 
1126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
State of Bihar 1993 (1) SCR 31 : (1993) 2 SCC 
16 ; Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab 1998 (2) 
Suppl. SCR 8 : (1998) 7 SCC 149 ; Harshad S. 
Mehta v. State of Maharashtra 2001 (2) Suppl. 
SCR 577 : (2001) 8 SCC 257; State of T. N. v. V. 
B 
Krishnaswami Naidu 1979 (3) SCR 928: (1979) 
4 SCC 5 ; Raghubans Dubey v. State of Bihar 
1967 SCR 423 : AIR 1967 SC 1167 ; Mis Swill 
Ltd. v. State of Delhi and Anr. 2001 (1) Suppl. 
SCR 527: (2001) 6 SCC 670; NisarandAnother 
c 
v. State of U.P 1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 368: (1995) 
2 SCC 23 ; 1995 Crl LJ 2118 ; Raghubans Dubey 
v. State of Bihar ( 1967) 2 SCR 423 - referred to. 
CASE LAW REFERENCE 
D (2006) 3 JCC 2081 
referred to .Para 8, 9, 14, 31 
' 
1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 125 referred to Para 9, 14, 15 
(2014) 3 sec 306 
referred to 
Para 9, 18 
2014 (2) SCR 1 
referred to 
Para 9, 20. 
E 1984 (2) SCR 914 
referred to Para 11,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.