TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocates for respondent No.7. Mr. Sudershan Rajan, Mr. Hitain Bajaj & Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocates for respondents No. 8, 10 & 14. Ms. Tarannum Cheema, & Mr. Akshay Nagarajan, Advocates for respondent No.9. Mr.Varun Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 11. O R D E R Crl.M.A. 11718/2020 in CRL.L.P. 184/2018 Crl.M.A. 11888/2020 in CRL.L.P. 185/2018 Crl.M.A. 11890/2020 in CRL.L.P. 257/2018 1. Vide these applications, petitioners Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Directorate of Enforcement (ED) are seeking early hearing of the criminal leave petitions. These petitions have been filed seeking 'leave to appeal' against the judgment dated 21st December, 2017 passed by learned Special Judge acquitting all the respondents for the offences charged against them, which are as under:- I. In Crl.L.P.184/2018 u/s 3 of PMLA and punishable under Section 4 of PMLA II. In Crl.L.P.185/2018 sections 420/409/468/471/193 IPC r/w section 120 B IPC r/w sections 7/11/12/13 (2) r/w section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. III. Crl.L.P.257/2018 Section 420 IPC r/w section 120B IPC 2. It is averred in the applications that all the three petitions ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Crl.L.P.184/2018; respondents No.3 & 11 in Crl.L.P.185/2018 and respondents No.6 & 8 in Crl.L.P.257/2018. Lengthy arguments have been addressed by learned counsels for the parties on these applications for two consecutive days. 6. Mr. Manu Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 in Crl.L.P.184/2018 and Crl.L.P.185/2018 opposed the early hearing applications by stating that during Covid 19 pandemic, physical hearing of the cases is not possible and through video conferencing, only urgent matters are being taken up and petitioners have not approached this Court giving any cogent reason as to why preference for hearing should be given to these leave petitions over those petitions/appeals where parties are in custody. Learned counsel also submitted that the provisions of Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have transformed after introduction of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and whether the new enactment applies to these leave petitions is a question of law which is required to be answered and since this Court has to demit office on 30th November, 2020, it is short of time to do so. Learned counsel also stated that no urgency has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the sides. 9. At the hearing, Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.11 stated that Crl.L.P. 185/2018 has voluminous record and it is not feasible for counsel for the respondents to make any effective references to record during submissions via video-conferencing. It was submitted that it is because of these difficulties/shortcomings of the video conferencing system that this Court has adjourned the hearing of all routine, pending matters (especially lengthy matters) during its suspended functioning. It was stated that the respondent ought not be relegated to an ineffectual opportunity of hearing in a matter that can have significant adverse consequences for him. Learned counsel also stated that these three leave petitions are not related to each other because three trials have taken place and three different judgments have been passed by the learned trial court. Learned counsel further submitted that due to Covid-19 pandemic, hearing in all criminal matters, where a large number of under trials and convicts are waiting, has been deferred and on misconceived grounds of importance, petitioners cannot be permitted to seek early hearing of these petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Division Bench but since no decision has yet come in this regard, there is no impediment in hearing the leave to appeal petitions. Learned ASG further submitted that so far as pendency of applications of respondents is concerned, it is only a part of the submissions to be made by the respondents in the petitions for grant of leave. 14. Learned counsel also submitted that other matters [Crl.Rev.P.381/2017; Crl.Rev.P.370/2017 and Crl.Rev.P.57/ 2017] arising out of "2 G Spectrum case" which resulted in discharge, were also challenged by CBI and ED and are pending before different Benches of this Court and no reason is forthcoming as to why only these leave petitions should be heard on priority and not other petitions. 15. It was next averred by learned counsel that by the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, only urgent matters are taken up through video conferencing as per the Roster and non-urgent matters shall be taken up by the Roster Benches on resumption of regular hearings. It was stated that non-urgent matter cannot be converted into urgent matter and even otherwise it has been directed that final hearing matters shall be taken up chronologically, so that old matters can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f India for arguing the appeal. It was stated that the plea of petitioners that these are high profile cases and acquittal order is also likely to adversely affect the interest of the Government of India and public exchequer in other related proceedings, is an untenable ground as claims against Government of India stand dismissed. 20. Learned counsel submitted that during restricted court hearings via video conference non urgent matters like criminal leave to appeal against acquittal, are not being taken up for hearing and therefore, moving such an application by petitioners is utter wastage of time of the Hon'ble Court. Hence, dismissal of this application is sought. 21. Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Advocate for respondent No.7 in Crl.L.P.185/2018 submitted that respondent No.7 is in custody in some other matter and that extensive arguments have already been made by Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, learned Advocate and other learned counsels for the respondents and she adopts the same on behalf of respondent No.7 as well. 22. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No. 3, 4 & 6 in Crl.L.P.257/2018 at the outset submitted that the application for early hearing file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... At this stage, it is clarified by this Court that arguments in Crl.L.P. 257/2018 will be heard only after conclusion of arguments in other petitions. 26. In rebuttal, Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned ASG submitted that three sets of trial have taken place and three judgments have been passed by the learned trial court but since these matters are inter connected, these leave petitions are required to be heard together. Learned ASG submitted that respondents' plea that no public interest is involved is without any basis, as every hearing puts a heavy burden on public exchequer and therefore 'leave to appeal' has to be heard and decided at the earliest, especially when precious judicial time has already been invested and it is a "part heard" matter and this Court is likely to demit office. Learned ASG also relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarelar (2008) 9 SCC 475 to submit that while hearing leave to appeal under Section 378 of the Code, the High Court has to see whether a prima facie case has been made out on arguable points and not that whether the order of acquittal would or would not be set aside. Learned ASG has drawn atte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nesses and record reasons why leave sought by the State should not be granted and the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court should not be disturbed. Where there is application of mind by the appellate court and reasons (may be in brief) in support of such view are recorded, the order of the court may not be said to be illegal or objectionable. At the same time, however, if arguable points have been raised, if the material on record discloses deeper scrutiny and reappreciation, review or reconsideration of evidence, the appellate court must grant leave as sought and decide the appeal on merits. In the case on hand, the High Court, with respect, did neither. In the opinion of the High Court, the case did not require grant of leave. But it also failed to record reasons for refusal of such leave." (emphasis supplied) 28. At this stage, it may be pointed out by this Court that principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment will, no doubt, guide this Court in deciding the petitions. 29. So far as submission of learned counsel for the respondents concerning Section 13(1) (d) of PC Act is concerned, learned ASG submitted that he will make ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rguments were heard on behalf of the petitioner. On 9th December, 2019, the matter stood adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and thereafter, further arguments on behalf of the petitioner were heard on 17th December, 2019, 15th, 16th and 27th January, 2020. On 31st January, 2020 arguments on behalf of respondents commenced and were also heard on 6th and 7th February, 2020. On 5th March, 2020, the cases were listed for 24th, 25th and 26th March, 2020 but due to Covid 19 pandemic, the work in Courts remained suspended and this matter could not be heard. 35. The question which now arises for consideration is whether this court which has already heard Crl.L.P. 185/2018 in detail, should leave it inconclusive along with other matters for the new Bench to hear the arguments afresh or should it make endeavours to hear the petitions and try to decide the same expeditiously. 36. The interest of justice demands that so far as possible, part-heard matters should not be left inconclusive and if the Bench has the time to hear further arguments, those should be heard and decided as expeditiously as possible. 37. Great pains have been taken by the learned counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to him, because of the judgment of acquittal, presumption of innocence in favour of respondents stands fortified and this Court should, therefore, be slow to interfere in such kind of cases. He as well as some other learned counsels have expressed their apprehension that it will be difficult to connect with the clients and they will not be able to make effective submissions. 42. There is no quarrel with the preposition of law that innocence of respondents stands fortified by the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court. This principle of law will, no doubt, be kept in mind and considered when it will be required to be applied at the appropriate stage. So far as concern expressed by learned counsels for the respondents regarding hearing through video conference is concerned, it may be pointed out that this court has been conducting hearing through video conference since 24th April, 2020 and cases which are voluminous in nature have also been decided. This ground should not, therefore, be an excuse for this Court or for the learned counsels for not proceeding with the arguments. Moreover, in this age of advance technology, there are speedy and effective modes of comm....