Allowed¶9

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sh. Vipin Kumar & Anr.

Delhi HC16 May 2025CRL.L.P./82/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, Neena Bansal Krishna, J., order dated 16.05.2025 in CRL.L.P. 82/2021: CBI's criminal leave to appeal under Section 378(2) Cr.P.C.; 225-day delay condoned via Crl.M.A. 13424/2025; leave granted against acquittal under Sections 120B IPC and Sections 7 & 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) PC Act, 1988 by Special Judge, CBI in CC No. 08/2019 (RC No. DAI2017-A-005, judgment dated 27.02.2020); prosecution witness testimony disregarded for material contradictions; presumption under Section 17 PC Act urged; appeal to be registered and listed for arguments on 03.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 225 days in filing the Criminal Leave to Appeal condoned; Leave Petition allowed; appeal to be registered and listed for arguments on 03.11.2025. ¶9

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Sh. Vipin Kumar & Anr. — Corruption | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.L.P. 82/2021

¶4

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Special Public Prosecutor with Mr. Kushagra Kumar & Mr. Himanshu Kaushik, Advocates

¶5

Versus

¶6

SH. VIPIN KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Nusrat Hossain & Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates for Respondents No.1 & 2

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 16.05.2025 Crl.M.A. 13424/2025

¶10

There is delay of 225 days in filing the Criminal Leave to Appeal against the Judgment dated 27.02.2020.

¶11

For the reasons stated in the Application, it is allowed and delay is condoned.

¶12

The Application is disposed of. CRL.L.P. 82/2021

¶13

The present Appeal under Section 378(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Petitioner- CBI against the Judgment dated 27.02.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI in CC No. 08/2019, arising out of RC No. DAI2017-A-005, whereby the Respondents have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 120 B IPC & Sections 7 & 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of PC

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 02:35:44

¶15

Act, 1988.

¶16

It is submitted that it has been erroneously observed by the learned Special Judge in the impugned Judgment that no demand was proved when infact not only the demand was proved the demand but there is presumption under Section 17 of the Act for proving the demand.

¶17

Secondly, the evidence has been led by the prosecution witness which has been disregarded on the ground that there are major contradictions when infact those contradictions do not go to the root of the matter and are only minor.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the testimony of the witnesses has been rightly appreciated and in light of the major contradictions it has been rightly observed that the demand was not proved, the benefit of which has been granted to the Respondent.

¶19

Submissions heard and record perused .

¶20

Considering that the witnesses had deposed in favour of the prosecution though their testimony has been disregarded by observing that there are material contradictions, the Leave Petition is allowed.

¶21