Allowed

Central Bureau of Investigation v. S K S Yadav

Kerala HC2 Apr 2024Crl.Rev.Pet/719/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CBI filed a criminal revision to set aside a trial court order dismissing its Section 311 Cr.P.C. application without reasons. The High Court held that recording reasons is an essential attribute of judicial proceedings and a principle of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, remitted to the Special Court for fresh consideration, and the application disposed of within tw

What did the court decide?

Order dated 03.11.2022 set aside; Crl.M.P.No.90/2022 remitted to Special Court; Sessions Judge to dispose within two weeks; section 311 proceedings deferred.

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs S K S Yadav — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 719 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 03.11.2022 IN CC NO.1 OF 2008 OF
DISTRICT COURT, KAVARATHY

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶8

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI-CORRUPTION
BUREAU, KALOOR KATHRIKADAVU ROAD, KALOOR P.O., KOCHI-
680017 REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, PIN -
680017

¶9

BY ADV SREELAL N.WARRIER

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 S K S YADAV

¶12

NO. 33/3, DELHI GOVT. FLATS, RAJPUR ROAD, CIVIL LINES,
DELHI - 110054., PIN - 110054

¶13

2 C N KASIMKOYA

¶14

S/O LATE SHRI N K SAYED MOHAMMED KOYA,THAHIRA MANZIL, KOOMEL, KALPENI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682557

¶15

3 V VISWANADH

¶16

GAUTHAM' TC/15/1210(3), KUKILIYA LANE, DP JUNCTION,
JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM- 14, PIN - 695014

¶17

4 K GANESH S/O SHRI M P VELAYUDHAN NAIR, M-6/18, MALAPARAMBA HOUSING COLONY, MALAPARAMBA PO, CALICUT DIST, KERALA, PIN - 673009

¶18

5 K ARUNACHALAM

¶19

S/O LATE SHRI S. KUMARASWAMIDD FIELDS, IV- 137/B, KUTTY
SAHIB ROAD, SOUTH CHITTOOR, ERNAKULAM - 682027, PIN -
682027

¶20

6 C VASANTHI W/O. K ARUNICHALAM, DD FIELDS, IV- 137/B, KUTTY SAHIB ROAD, SOUTH CHITTOOR, ERNAKULAM - 682027, PIN - 682027

¶21

7 K A JANU

¶22

W/O. SHRI. C. P. KUNJAPPAN, CHEROPULLITHARA HOUSE, EDVANAKKAD, VACHACKKAL P.O., VYPIN, ERNAKULAM DIST. PIN 682502, PIN - 682502

¶23

8 K A KUNJAPPAN CHEROPULLITHARA HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD, VACHACKKAL PO, VYPIN ERNAKULAM DIST, PIN - 682502 BY ADVS.

¶24

CRL.REV.PET NO. 719 OF 2023

¶25

¶26

MUHAMMED SHAFI M
T.RASINI(K/000090/2017)

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

CRL.REV.PET NO. 719 OF 2023

¶29

¶30

K.BABU, J.

¶31

CRL.REV.PET.No.719 of 2023

¶32

Dated this the 2^nd day of April, 2024

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

The prayer in this Crl.Rev.Pet. is as follows:-

¶35

“(i) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records in C.C.1/2008 and more specifically in Crl.M.P.No.90/2022 on the files of the Hon’ble Sessions Court (Special Court for CBI Cases), Kavarattti, Lakshadweep and set aside the order dated 03.11.2022 in Crl.M.P.90/2022 and order leave to the prosecution to examine the witness named and sought to be examined therein”

¶36

The Central Bureau of Investigation is the revision petitioner. Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 are the accused in C.C.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Court (Special Court for CBI Cases), Kavaratti. The accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420 and 468 r/w Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 7, 12, 13(2) r/w Section 13(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶37

The prosecution case

¶38

The Directorate of Education of Union Territory of Lakshadweep floated tender to supply readymade uniforms for the school children in the Lakshadweep Islands free of cost for

¶39

the academic year 2005–2006. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd

¶40

CRL.REV.PET NO. 719 OF 2023

¶41

¶42

respondents herein (A-1 to A-3) were the tender committee members. The 4th respondent (A-5) and Shri M Nagendran (Approver) conspired with A-1 Public Servant to secure the contract illegally by paying illegal gratification to A-1 and the other committee members. A-5 also conspired with the 5th and 6th respondents herein (A-6 and A-7), the agency holders of one M/s. Gujrat Emporium, Ernakulam who submitted quotation in their name.

¶43

3.1. In pursuance of the above conspiracy with A-5 to A-7, and Shri M Nagendran (Approver), the committee members awarded the tender illegally to M/s Gujrat Emporium by dishonestly rejecting all the other bidders. The samples of the cloth submitted by M/s Gujrat Emporium along with the tender documents were also not up to the standard of tender specification. Despite so, the tender was awarded to M/s. Gujrat Emporium.

¶44

3.2. The illegal gratification of Rs 5.25 Lakhs along with other articles were obtained by A-1 for himself and other committee members for the illegal award of tender.

¶45

The prosecution examined PW7, who is the member of

¶46

¶47

CRL.REV.PET NO. 719 OF 2023

¶48

the procurement committee, to establish the alleged conspiracy. It is submitted that the prosecution failed to locate and mark one of the samples while examining PW7. So the prosecution filed an application seeking recalling of PW 7 under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

¶49

The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application. The operative portion of the order reads thus:

¶50

“Heard. Opposed. I am satisfied that the intention of the prosecution is to fill in lacuna created in the prosecution case which cannot be permitted. Hence Petition is dismissed.”

¶51

The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI, Sri. Sreelal Warrier submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not passed a reasoned order which caused prejudice to the prosecution.

¶52

Providing reasons in orders is an essential attribute of judicial proceedings. The reason is the very life of the law. Every litigant who approaches the court with a prayer is entitled to know the reasons for acceptance or rejection of such prayer.

¶53

Reasons are also essential for either of the parties to the lis to make the remedy of appeal meaningful. It is the reasoning which ultimately culminates into a final decision which may be

¶54

¶55

CRL.REV.PET NO. 719 OF 2023

¶56

subject to examination of the higher courts.

¶57

While highlighting the principle that, to give reasons is the rule of natural justice, the Apex Court in the Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others [AIR 2010 SC 1285] held that, not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justicedelivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court

¶58

CRL.REV.PET NO. 719 OF 2023

¶59

¶60

concerned had really applied its mind. The Apex Court further held that absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. It was further held that the recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected may know, as why his application has been rejected.

¶61

In Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh [(1987) 2 SCC

¶62

222] the Apex Court held that recording of proper reasons would be essential, so that the appellate court would have advantage of considering the considered opinion of the High Court on the reasons which had weighed with the trial court.

¶63

In State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar [(2004) 5 SCC

¶64

568] the Apex Court held that reasons in support of the decision is cardinal principle and right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system.

¶65

In State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jain

¶66

[(2008) 15 SCC 711] the Apex Court held that reason is the

¶67

¶68

CRL.REV.PET NO. 719 OF 2023

¶69

heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.

¶70

In Assistant Commissioner, Commissioner Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers (2010 KHC 4260) , the Apex Court held that, the principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind.

¶71

The court below lost sight of the above-mentioned salutary requirements while passing the impugned order. It ignored the fact that a losing litigant has a cause to plead and a right to challenge the order if it was adverse to him.

¶72

Resultantly, the order dated 03.11.2022 shall stand set aside. The Criminal M.P.No.90 of 2022 is remitted to the Special Court for consideration afresh. The revision petition stands allowed as above. The learned Sessions Judge shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date of

¶73

CRL.REV.PET NO. 719 OF 2023

¶74

¶75

receipt of a copy of this judgment. The further proceedings in the Trial Court shall stand deferred till the disposal of the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.

¶76

Sd/-

¶77

K. BABU JUDGE

¶78

saap

Central Bureau of Investigation v. S K S Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bureau of Investigation v. S K S Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sherly Albert Vs Sheeba George

Aravind.P Vs State of Kerala

Narayanan Stalin, Vs State of Kerala

J. Ramkumar Vs State of Kerala

Rajeevan.T S/O.Karunakakran Vs State of Kerala SHO Thalasserry Police Station] Rep.by Public Prosecutor

Shyamkumar Vs Jacob.K.J.