Ashok Kumar v. CBI

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file andphysical file have been compared and Cri.Rev.P.No.12/2009 the digital data i s as p er the physical file and no page is missing.

"Investigating officer had neither mentioned the role of the persons, whose names emerged over the record through statements of Ram Chander Sharma, Satyabir Singh, Nanak Chand, Narpal Singh and V.S. Harit in the chargesheet nor he had specified the files in which aforesaid persons gave estimates of red sand stone benches, gave technical sanction to those estimates, after getting it technically checkec' and administrative approval of those rates and thereafter executed agreements with contractors and ultimately released payments to them. It is evident that aforesaid officers, whose names, came over the record through statement of witnesses, namely, Ram Chander Sharma, Satyabir Singh, Nanak Chand, Narpat Singh and V.S. Harit are not absolved of the crime of conspiracy with intent to cheat the Corporation and misconduct of abusing their official position as such public servants to obtain pecuniary advantage in favour of contractors. Consequently, it is evident that the investigating officer had disobeyed directions of law with intent to save aforesaid persons from legal punishment and framed incorrect record. Resultantly, Director, CBI is commanded to get a case registered against the investigating officer for offences punishable under section 217 and 218 of the Penal Code, cause it to be investigated and brought him to the book."

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the directions issued by the trial court in the aforesaid paragraph No.54 of the impugned order for registration of a case against the petitioner under Section 217 and 218 of the I PC.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawn c, attention of this Court to a decision render'ed by my esteemed brother Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., on 26th March, Cri.Rev.P .No.12/2009 Page 2 of4

2008 in Cri.Rev.P.No.10/2008 titled as Manmohan Sharma vs. State, wherein it has been held that before passing strictures against a police officer, he has to be afforded an opportunity of explaining his conduct.