State by C.B.i., New Delhi Vs. R. Suri Babu and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....cogent reasons, letters patent bench would not differ from a finding of fact recorded by a single judge. where the trial court and the first appellate court have considered the evidence thoroughly and have based their concurrent findings on the evidence, the letters patent bench should be slow in interfering with such findings. where in the suit for declaration of title and possession neither title of plaintiff, nor previous possession of plaintiff, nor encroachment by defendants was made out and the letters patent bench interfered with the well reasoned judgments of the trial court and first appellate court which were based on concurrent finding of facts, without justification, and in the absence of any clear and acceptable evidence, the interference by letters patent bench was..........and 174/99. both were heard together and by a common order (which is under challenge in these appeals) learned single judge discharged those accused, but at the same time directed the case to be proceeded as against the remaining accused.4. the appellant - c.b.i. had raised various grounds assailing the reasoning advanced by the learned single judge for discharging the respondents. as the arguments were stared we expressed the consequence of dealing with a petition filed by the accused for discharging them and pointed out the dangers involved for either side if this court is to reach any finding on the contentious issues. at the said stage, learned counsel for the respondent sought time to get instructions in the matter. today under instructions from the respondents, it was.....

Judgment:
ORDER

2. They and four others were chargesheeted by the Central Bureau of Investigation for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 7, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The first accused is shown as Principal of one P.C. Dental and Nursing College, Bangalore, second accused was shown as the Minister for Health in the Ministry headed by the third accused Bangrappa and the fourth accused was the Chairman of the said P.C. Dental and Nursing College, (apart from being a sitting M.L.A.) and accused No. 5 was Chairman of the Local Enquiry Committee appointed by the Bangalore University.

3. The trial court heard the accused in the matter of framing charge and passed a detailed order on 8-1-99 holding that the evidence produced by the prosecution is sufficient to frame charge against the accused persons. The said order of the Special Judge was challenged by the respondents in these appeals before the High Court in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 112/99 and 174/99. Both were heard together and by a common order (which is under challenge in these appeals) learned single judge discharged those accused, but at the same time directed the case to be proceeded as against the remaining accused.

4. The appellant - C.B.I. had raised various grounds assailing the reasoning advanced by the learned single judge for discharging the respondents. As the arguments were stared we expressed the consequence of dealing with a petition filed by the accused for discharging them and pointed out the dangers involved for either side if this Court is to reach any finding on the contentious issues. At the said stage, learned Counsel for the respondent sought time to get instructions in the matter. Today under instructions from the respondents, it was submitted before us by Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel that those respondents would withdraw the revision petitions filed before the High Court for discharge, without prejudice to their rights to raise appropriate contentions before the trial court at the appropriate stage.

5. Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the C.B.I. submitted that he has no objection to the said course being adopted as it would enable the trial to proceed to its logical end.

6. In the light of the said submission that revision petitions filed before the High Court are withdrawn we do not think it necessary to go into the contentions or grounds raised in these appeals for assailing the reasoning adopted by the learned single judge. We order that the revision petitions filed in the High Court by the respondents would stand withdrawn and consequently the impugned order will stand erased. If the trial court is to decide any question which had been dealt with in the impugned judgment the same shall be decided as though the High Court has not pronounced any opinion on such questions thus far. The trial court will now frame charge against the respondents alongwith the other accused and proceed to take evidence in accordance with law and conclude the trial and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible.

7. Appeals are disposed of accordingly.