Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Alok Kumar on 24 January, 2025
SLP (CRIMINAL) DIARY NO(S). 58109/2024
ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.16 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) DIARY NO(S). 58109/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-08-2024
in CRLP No. 316/2023 passed by the Gauhati High Court]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
ALOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)
(IA No. 13619/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING)
Date : 24-01-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv.
Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv.
Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
2. Heard Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, learned Additional
Solicitor General appearing for the CBI.
Signature Not Verified
3. The challenge in the present petition is to the order
dated 07.08.2024 passed by the Gauhati High Court in
Digitally signed by
geeta ahuja
Date: 2025.01.24
18:50:36 IST
Reason:
CRLP No.316/2023, by which the charge sheet against
1
SLP (CRIMINAL) DIARY NO(S). 58109/2024
the respondent has been quashed in connection with FIR
No.RC2162022A0007, registered under Section 120-B of
the IPC read with Sections 7,8,9,10 and 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC
Act’).
4. The short point learned Additional Solicitor General
raised was that at this stage, where the investigation has
come up with material to indicate that the respondent
would be culpable of committing offence under the
aforesaid sections under the PC Act, the High Court ought
not to have quashed the said charge sheet itself. He
submitted that the further irregularity of the High Court
would be apparent from the fact that upon the said
charge sheet, the concerned Court had also taken
cognizance which clearly indicates that the Court had
applied its legal mind and found material to justify the
respondent being put to trial. It was further contended
that even as per the provision of Section 17A of the PC
Act, the enquiry by the petitioner was legally sustainable
and on this ground, interference could not have been
made by the High Court.
5. Issue notice on the Special Leave Petition as well as
on the prayer for interim relief, returnable on
24.02.2025.
(Ram Subhag Singh) (Geeta Ahuja)
Assistant Registrar Assistant Registrar-cum-PS
2
[ad_1]
Source link
