Delhi District Court
Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs Cbi on 5 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH.SHAILENDER MALIK, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC
ACT), CBI-21: ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No..28/2025
CNR No. DLCT11-000689-2025
Sanjeev Kumar Garg
s/o Lt. Sh.Ishwar Dass
r/o B-1/587, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058. ...Revisionist
Versus
(1)Central Bureau of Investigation
Through CBI/ACB, New Delhi
Office at: Plot No.5-B,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003. ...Respondent No.1
(2)Gyan Chand Aggarwal
s/o Lt. Sh.Bhagwan Dass Aggarwal
r/o A-1/43, Prashant Vihar,
Sector-14, Rohini,
New Delhi-110085. ...Respondent No.2
Date of Institution : 21.07.2025
Date of arguments heard : 04.08.2025
Date of order : 05.08.2025
ORDER
1. This is revision under Section 438 read with 440 of BNSS
challenging the proprietary of orders dated 09.05.2025 in CC No.
CBI/509/2019, arising out of FIR No. RC DAI 2006 A 0053 whereby
accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal (respondent no.2 herein) was convicted on
Digitally
signed by
_____________________________________________________________________ SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.1 2025.08.05
15:55:41
+0530
his application for plea of guilt and was sentenced for simple imprisonment
till rising of court as well as with fine of Rs.65,000/- and a compensation
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded to revisionist herein. Revisionist is one
of the victim of CGHS scam.
Factual background
2. In terms of order dated 13.02.2006 of Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in CWP 10066/2004, CBI was directed to investigate matters
relating to Cooperative Group Housing Society scam. In respect of Shiam
CGHS, a preliminary inquiry was initiated and thereafter RC DAI 2006 A
0053 was registered under Section 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC. Upon
completion of investigation CBI filed charge sheet on 31.12.2007 against
four accused namely (i) Gyan Chand Aggarwal (respondent no.2 herein);
(ii) Kishan Kumar Aggarwal; (iii) Anil Kumar; and (iv) Dinesh Kumar. On
the basis of material collected during the investigation, ld. ACMM framed
charges against above said four accused persons for offence under Section
120B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC as well as for substantive offence under
Section 420, 468, 471 IPC. At that stage all the four accused persons did
not plead guilty and claim trial.
3. Subsequent to framing of charge, one of the accused namely
Dinesh Kumar filed an application of plea bargaining, said application was
allowed by the Link Court of ACMM and by order dated 06.08.2022 said
accused stood convicted in the process of plea bargaining after recording of
mutual satisfactory disposition and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment till rising of the court, with fine amount of Rs.90,000/-
Digitally
signed by
SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK
_____________________________________________________________________
Date:
2025.08.05
15:55:49
+0530Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.2
which was paid to one of the victims in the present case. Revisionist
herein however stated in that plea bargaining proceedings that he is not
seeking compensation from accused Dinesh Kumar.
4. Thereafter other two accused persons namely Anil Kumar and
Kishan Kumar Aggarwal also moved an application for plea bargaining,
which was also allowed in the same manner by order dated 18.12.2024 and
those two accused also stood convicted in that proceedings for above
mentioned offences and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till
rising of court, with directions to pay fine in the shape of compensation for
victims, out of which a compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was jointly
paid by both the accused to revisionist herein.
5. Thereafter respondent no.2/accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal
has also moved an application dated 23.12.2024 for pleading guilt to the
charge. It be noted here that till the stage of his moving application for
pleading guilty, prosecution could not lead any evidence as matter
remained pending, for disposal of plea bargaining applications moved by
other accused persons, which stood disposed off as noted above. On the
application of pleading guilty by respondent no.2 herein, notices were
issued to victims including revisionist herein who as per judicial record
appeared on 17.01.2025, 31.01.2025 as well as on 03.03.2025. Ld. ACJM
by impugned order dated 09.05.2025, allowed that application of pleading
guilty and convicted respondent no.2 herein Gyan Chand Aggarwal for
offence under Section 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC as well as under Section
420, 468, 471 IPC, which is being reproduced herein below : Digitally
signed by
_____________________________________________________________________
SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.3
2025.08.05
15:55:57
+0530
“The present application has been filed by
accused/applicant Gyan Chand Aggarwal for expressing his
willingness to plead guilty to the offences for which he has
been charged with. It is stated in the application that the
accused/applicant Gyan Chand Aggarwal is 71 years old and
is suffering from various diseased like high blood pressure
and diabetes.
Notice of the application was given to the prosecution.
Notice was also issued to all the victims of the case.
Pursuance to the notice, victims Pooran Chand, Arun
Goyal, Ram Vilas Gupta, Pradeep Sharma, Anoop Sharma,
Prakash Aggarwal, Naresh Kumar and Ashwani Sharma
appeared in the court and submitted that they do not want
any compensation from accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal and
will have no objection if a lenient view is taken against the
accused on his pleading guilty. Their statements to this
effect were recorded separately.
On behalf of victim Brahm Prakash, Ms. Tanvi
Manchand, Advocate appeared and informed that victim
Brahm Prakash is bed ridden and on instructions, she stated
that Brahm Prakash does not want any compensation from
accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal and will have no objection if
a lenient view is taken against the accused on his pleading
guilty. Statement of Ms. Tanvi Manchanda, Advocate was
separately recorded in this regard.
Summon issued to victim S.C. Nagrath were received
back with the report that he is bed ridden. Fresh summons
were directed to be issued to victim S.C. Nagrath through
the HIO to appear through VC/authorized representative or
to give instructions to the HIO as to whether he is seeking
any compensation from accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal and Digitally
signed bywhether he will have any objection in case accused Gyan
SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2025.08.05
15:56:03_____________________________________________________________________ +0530
Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.4
Chand Aggarwal pleads guilty. Accordingly, the IO filed a
compliance report, whereby, it was informed that ASI
Surender Singh visited the residence of victim S.C. Nagrath
and was told that he was not willing to participate in the
present proceedings, does not want any compensation from
accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal and has no objection if
accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal pleads guilty. Statement of
victim S.C. Nagrath, to this effect, was separately obtained
by the IO.
Victims Lila Dhar, Manmohan Goyal and Manmohan Lal
have already expired and thus, no notice was issued to them.
Notice issued to Rajender Singh Joon is received back with
the report that he has expired.
Notice was also issued to victim Sanjeev Kumar who
appeared before the court on 31.01.2025 and 03.03.2025.
However, he was not willing to get his statement recorded, as
was done by other victims.
I have explained to accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal, the
implication/consequences of their pleading guilty. But he
has persisted and stated that he want to plead guilty as he is
suffering the ordeal of trial since the year 2006. Heard.
Statement of the accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal has been
separately recorded.
I am satisfied that his plea of guilt is voluntary in nature
and it is free from any force, fear or coercion and that the
accused understands the consequences/implications of his
pleading guilty. In the light of the said voluntary plea of
guilt, there is no reason to doubt the case of the prosecution.
Accordingly, accused/applicant Gyan Chand Aggarwal is
hereby convicted of the offences punishable under Section
120B r/w section 420/468/471 IPC and Section 420, 468 r/w
471 IPC.”
Digitally
signed by
SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
_____________________________________________________________________ 2025.08.05
15:56:09Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.5
+0530
6. On the same day ld. ACJM sentenced the respondent no.2
herein for simple imprisonment till rising of court with fine of Rs.65,000/-
and further to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to revisionist herein.
This order is also being reproduced herein below :
“In the light of mitigating circumstances mentioned above,
as well as no objection by the Ld. PP for the CBI, I am of the
view that ends of justice would be met by sentencing the
accused in the following manner:-
(i) the convict Gyan Chand Aggarwal shall undergo
simple imprisonment till the rising of the court.
(ii) the convict shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as fine
for commission of offence under Section 120 r/w
Section 420/468/471 IPC.
(iii) the convict shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as fine
for commission of offence under Section 420 IPC.
(iv) the convict shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as fine
for commission of offence under Section 468 IPC.
(v) the convict shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as fine
for commission of offence under Section 471 IPC.
(vi) Accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal shall deposit
Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation which victim Sanjeev
Kumar shall be at liberty to obtain from the court on
filing a proper application.
Fine amount and compensation amount totalling
Rs.1,65,000/- deposited. Receipt be issued. Respective
personal bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
Original documents, if any, be returned to the rightly
claimant as per rules. Endorsement, if any, be also cancelled
Digitally
signed by
SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2025.08.05
15:56:14
+0530_____________________________________________________________________
Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.6
as per rules. Requisite bonds under Section 437A has been
furnished. The same are accepted.
Notice be issued to victim Sanjeev Kumar for obtaining
the compensation amount for 26.05.2025.”
Grounds of Revision
7. Above mentioned orders dated 09.05.2025 of ld. ACJM have
been challenged by way of present revision on the ground that ld. ACJM
has passed an illegal order as the court did not appreciate the fact that
accused at the time when charges were framed did not plead guilty and
court called upon the prosecution to adduce its evidence. In such situation
trial was required to be carried out to the logical end and in between this
stage unless some evidence has been recorded, statement of the accused for
pleading guilty could not have been recorded as per the provisions of
Cr.PC. Once the matter was fixed for recording of prosecution evidence,
proceedings ought to have culminated in judgment as per Section 248 r/w
354 Cr.PC. It is stated that ld. ACJM has failed to appreciate that if the
accused had not pleaded guilty when charges were framed, there was no
provision in law, enabling the accused to move an application for plead
guilty. Rather evidence ought to have been taken and matter should have
culminated in the shape of judgment of either acquittal or conviction.
Subsequent admission of guilt by respondent no.2 by moving an
application pleading guilty, can be used as confirming the credibility of the
Digitally
signed by
SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2025.08.05
_____________________________________________________________________ 15:56:19
+0530Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.7
evidence, formally to be adduced at the trial and judgment must be founded
on the evidence and not merely on admission of guilt by the accused.
8. It is stated that ld. ACJM by passing the impugned orders had
rather reviewed the order dated 30.01.2020 whereby charges were framed
against the accused persons in which accused did not plead guilty and
claim trial. It is stated that the court of ld. ACJM did not appreciate the
fact that amount of compensation under Section 357 Cr.PC is to be
determined on the basis of facts and circumstances, gravity of the crime,
just and fairness of the claim, after weighing all the factors and evidence on
the record. The amount of compensation so fixed by the court of ld. ACJM
was arbitrary and without application of mind, without even examining
certain material facts and evidence regarding the victim.
Submissions
9. Notice of the revision petition was served to CBI as well as
respondent no.2. I have heard Sh.Satyam Sharma, ld. Counsel for
revisionist as well as ld. PP for CBI/respondent no.1 and Sh.Neeraj Gupta,
ld. Counsel for respondent no.2.
10. Sh.Satyam Sharma, ld. Counsel for revisionist submitted that
the most important aspect, regarding the illegality occurred in the
impugned orders is the fact that when charges were framed all the four
accused persons did not plead guilty and claim trial. Other three accused
persons adopted the procedure of plea bargaining and they were convicted
and sentenced in accordance with the procedure of plea bargaining and
under a mutual satisfactory disposition. It is submitted that however
_____________________________________________________________________ Digitally
signed bySanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.8 SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2025.08.05
15:56:26
+0530
accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal did not resort to procedure of plea
bargaining, rather straightaway moved an application for pleading guilty to
the charge. It is argued by ld. Counsel for revisionist that once the matter
was at the stage of trial and prosecution evidence was to be recorded, the
court of ld. ACJM ought to have taken evidence of prosecution and to
decide the matter on the basis of material and evidence collected. It is
submitted that application of pleading guilty of the accused could at the
most be considered to be an admission of all the incriminating evidence
collected by the CBI. Fact remains that ld. Court of ACJM ought to have
decided the matter by way of judgment on the basis of evidence as well as
on the basis of admission by way of pleading guilty to the charge.
11. While putting much emphasis on the judgment of Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in Gaurav Aggarwal vs. State 2019 SCC OnLine
Del. 9262, it is submitted that once the trial had commenced and
prosecution evidence was called upon, matter could not have been
mechanically decided only on the application of accused for pleading
guilty rather court ought to have passed a judgment on the basis of material
/evidence including taking into consideration the admission of the accused
to the evidence by way of plead guilty. It is also argued that there has been
a consistent view of different High Courts corroborating the view as taken
by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on this aspect.
12. Ld. Counsel for revisionist further argued that amount of
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- fixed by the court of ld. ACJM, to be paid
to the revisionist herein was without application of mind and a proper
_____________________________________________________________________
Digitally
signed by
SHELENDERSanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.9
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2025.08.05
15:56:31
+0530
inquiry as is required in terms of Section 357 Cr.PC. While relying upon
the judgment of Apex court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of
Maharashtra AIR 2013 SC 2454, It is submitted that power conferred to
the court to award compensation is along with a bounded duty to consider
the issue of compensation in every case after examining all the facts and
evidence. It is submitted that the Court of ld. ACJM, ought to have taken
into consideration the evidence collected by the CBI during investigation
with regard to victim/revisionist herein and to decide the compensation
whereas the court of ld. ACJM fixed the amount of compensation
mechanically on the basis of the amount of compensation fixed in respect
of other accused persons which was under the procedure of plea bargaining
and a mutual satisfactory disposition.
13. Ld. PP for the CBI opposed the revision by submitting that
since there was no evidence led and considerable period of time had
already elapsed, respondent no.2 had already admitted the guilt and the
evidence collected during the investigation, therefore conviction of the
accused Gyan Chand Aggarwal was in accordance with law.
14. Sh.Neeraj Gupta, ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 also argued
that entire edifice of filing of revision petition is in fact in a way
challenging the discretionary power of the court while sentencing the
accused. It is argued that such judicial discretion cannot be challenged
when there is no arbitrariness or illegality. It is submitted that jurisdiction
of revision cannot be invoked only to settle personal score and when there
is no patent illegality in the order of the trial court. It is also argued by the
Digitally
_____________________________________________________________________ signed by
SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.10 MALIK Date:
2025.08.05
15:56:38
+0530
counsel for respondent no.2 that respondent no.2 had been facing the
proceedings/trial in the matter for thirteen long years. Other accused
persons had already been convicted by adopting the procedure of plea
bargaining, in peculiar circumstances of the present case when the
respondent no.2 herein/accused was 71 years of age, pleaded guilty to the
charge and sought the culmination of the proceedings, after understanding
all legal consequences. Ld. Counsel has relied upon judgment of
Allahabad High Court in Ram Kishan vs. State of UP 1996 Crl.LJ 440 as
well as judgment of Kerala High Court in Santhosh vs. State of Kerala
(2003) 1 KLT 795 and submitted that the court can also adopt the
procedure of deciding the matter on the plea of guilt of the accused even if
at earlier stage accused when charges were framed did not plead guilty and
claim trial.
Analysis & Conclusion
15. The criminal trial, goes in accordance with the procedure as
laid down in erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure and now in terms of
the provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Since the
present case pertains to Cr.PC. It be noted that Cr.PC lays down detailed
provisions for holding trial of criminal cases of different offences at
different courts. 18th Chapter relates to trial before Court of Session, 19 th to
21st Chapter relate to trial before the Court of Magistrate, out of which the
last Chapter pertains to summary trial. In trial before Court of Session
provisions like Section 228(2), 229 and 330 provide regarding plea of guilt
i.e. when the Sessions Court frame charges in Sessions trial and read over Digitally
_____________________________________________________________________
signed by
SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.11
MALIK Date:
2025.08.05
15:56:48
+0530
and explained to the accused and accused is asked whether he wants to
plead guilty to the charge or claims to be tried. If accused at that stage
pleads guilty, Judge shall record the plea and proceed on its discretion to
convict the accused as per law. If accused however refuses to plead guilty,
obviously the trial would follow and evidence of prosecution would be
recorded.
16. In the similar manner in warrant cases before Magistrate, there
are provisions such as Section 240(2), 241 and 242 of Cr.PC and in warrant
cases instituted otherwise than on police report, provisions are Section
246(1), 246(2), 246(3) and 246(4) of Cr.PC. In trial of summons cases,
relevant provisions are Section 251, 252, 253(2) and 254 of Cr.PC. In
criminal trial another stage comes when statement of the accused is to be
recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.PC when incriminating prosecution
evidence is put to the accused and accused has an opportunity to admit his
guilt by admitting the incriminating evidence.
17. Beside the above noted provisions, there is no provision in the
Cr.PC which lays down that after the stage under the above noted
provisions having passed, whether accused can plead guilty. For example
when trial is going on and evidence is to be recorded, whether accused can
plead guilty to the charge, once he having denied for the same when
charges were framed and claimed the trial against him. There has been
divergent judicial views on this aspect. Before we proceed to discuss
different judgments on this legal aspect, it is appropriate to refer to the
SHELENDER
judgment of Delhi High Court in Gaurav Aggarwal‘s case (supra) which MALIK
_____________________________________________________________________ Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.12
MALIK
Date: 2025.08.05
15:56:54 +0530
has been heavily relied upon by ld. Counsel for the revisionist. Hon’ble
High Court while taking note of above mentioned provisions and the fact
that there has been no specific provision in Cr.PC, has observed in para 30
of the judgment as : “…if the accused pleads not guilty or plea of guilt is
not acted upon to record conviction thereon, the court calling upon
prosecution to adduce its evidence in support of its case, the trial proceeds
in the manner prescribed in the law, it ordinarily culminating in a
judgment setting out, inter alia “the points for determination”, “the
decision thereon” and “the reason for the decision”, as indeed final
conclusions resulting in acquittal or conviction. The prescribed criminal
procedure does not concede exercise of plea of guilt (in answer to the
charge or notice of accusation) being held more than once. Undoubtedly
the Chapter XXI-A on “plea bargaining” permits a person accused of an
offence to move an application “for plea bargaining”. But then, Section
265B(1) Cr.PC makes it clear that such application is to be made to the
court in which such offence is “pending for trial”, it being implicit in the
said expression that the case in which such application for plea bargaining
is to be entertained cannot be one which is “pending trial”.
18. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in para 45 laid down the
proposition as :
“45. To put it simply, once the trial has commenced, the
prosecution having been called upon to adduce its witnesses
(in the wake of accused having pleaded not guilty or
notwithstanding the plea of guilty entered by him), the case Digitally
signed bymust result in the judgment (of conviction or acquittal) only
SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2025.08.05
15:56:59_____________________________________________________________________
+0530Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.13
on the basis of evidence. Without doubt, the admission of
evidence or of facts showing complicity in acts that
constitute the guilt of an accused as appearing in
proceedings held under Section 294 Cr.P.C. or his statement
under Section 313 Cr. PC can be basis of the final judgment
of conviction. But then, it is inherent in this that such
admission(s) would be read as confirming the credibility of
the evidence formally adduced at the trial and, therefore, the
decision would essentially be founded on evidence and not
(merely) on admission(s) or plea of guilty.”
19. Apparently in view of above mentioned observation/legal
proposition as laid down, present revision has been filed. In the above said
judgment there are reference of other judgments also which reiterate the
similar legal proposition to the effect :
“Having recorded the plea of not guilty, the
Magistrate was bound to proceed with the
examination of witness and dispose of the case on
merits. There is no provision in Criminal Procedure
Code authorizing the Magistrate to question the
accused a second time as to whether he pleaded guilty
or not and to convict him on plea of guilt.”
(Reference : Daveed Chellayan vs. State 1957 TC 89,
Jayanti Laxman vs. State 1964 (2) Crl.LJ 86, M.
Kuppuswamy 1968 Crl.LJ 416, Re Selvi and others
1975 Crl.LJ 113, Lalji Ram vs. Corporation of
Calcatta 1924 SCC OnLine Cal. 494, Kishore
Chandra Bhanu Shankar vs. Bhavnagar
Municipality 1969 Crl.LJ 1242).
20. However contrary view has also been taken by many High
Courts. In Sham Charan Bharthuar and ors. vs. Emp. 1934 Patna 330,
Digitally
signed by
_____________________________________________________________________
SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.14
2025.08.05
15:57:05
+0530
Patna High Court considered a batch of criminal appeals arising out of
session trial, wherein after recording of 52 prosecution witnesses, when
major portion of trial was already complete, on the application of accused
persons pleading guilty, Sessions Courts convicted the accused persons u/s
121A IPC. In appeal inter alia it was challenged that proceedings ought to
have concluded by judgment on the basis of evidence, however Patna High
Court held that when accused in the course of trial withdraws his claim to
be tried and pleads guilty to the court, he is entitled to get his plea recorded
and to be accepted by the court instead of continuing with the trial. Such
subsequent recording of plea of guilt was held to be mere an irregularity
curable in terms of Section 465 of Code. Reference can also be given of
judgment in Ram Kishan vs. State of UP (supra) wherein it was held that
if at any stage accused pleads guilty and Judge being satisfied that said plea
is voluntary plea and without any coercion, physical or mental, there is
nothing in the Cr.PC to prevent such guilt being recorded and thereafter on
its basis conviction can safely be recorded. In Santhosh vs. State of
Kerala (supra), it was held that no doubt there is no specific provision in
Cr.PC enabling the court to permit the accused to withdraw his claim to be
tried and to convict him on a plea of guilt subsequently but there is no
prohibition in the Cr.PC to record such plea of guilt during the course of
trial. The object of trial is to investigate the offence and to find out the
truth. When the guilt is admitted by the accused and admission is founded
to be voluntary, there is no reason why the court should not allow him to
withdraw his claim to be tried and pleaded guilty. Digitally signed
by
SHELENDER_____________________________________________________________________
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2025.08.05
Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.15 15:57:11 +0530
21. Thus keeping in view the divergent view taken by different
courts at different points of time, one needs to keep in mind that the
ultimate object of any criminal proceedings/trial is to reach to the truth of
the matter and to convict/acquit the accused in accordance with law. If at
the stage when the charges were framed accused may not have pleaded
guilty, that by itself is not sufficient for accused to face prolonged trial or to
get judgment only on the basis of evidence to be recorded. The court of
justice need to keep in mind all relevant factors including the pendency of
cases, the fact that age of the accused etc.
22. The judgment of Delhi High Court in Gaurav Aggarwal’s
case (supra) however can be distinguished on certain factual aspects. In
that case the plea of guilt was got recorded by the lawyers by giving
statement before the Magistrate in the absence of his client/accused. The
Hon’ble High Court in the peculiar facts of that case laid down the
proposition as noted above as well as also noted that ld. Magistrate has not
adopted proper procedure. Whereas in the present case it is accused who
was 71 years of age when moved the application and pleaded guilty to the
charge accepting the charge and allegations against him as well as
understanding the legal consequence of his pleading guilty, as is very much
reflected from the order of ld. ACJM reproduced above. It be also noted
here that such application of pleading guilty was not mechanically decided
rather notice of the same was given to revisionist herein who admittedly
had appeared on 17.01.2025, 31.01.2025 and 03.03.2025. Ld. ACJM has
very much noted this fact in impugned order that victim Sanjeev Kumar
Digitally
_____________________________________________________________________ signed by
SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.16 MALIK Date:
2025.08.05
15:57:17
+0530
despite appearing in the court was not willing to get his statement recorded
as was done by other victims. It is not the case where even victim raised
any objection before ld. ACJM regarding the procedure adopted on the
application of respondent no.2 for pleading guilty.
23. Therefore this court finds no illegality or impropriety in the
order of ld. ACJM when other three co-accused persons have already been
convicted albeit by adopting the procedure of plea bargaining. Fact
remains that when similar quantum of sentence has been awarded to the
respondent no.2 herein as was sentenced to other co-accused in their plea
bargaining application and at that stage revisionist had no objection.
Moreover prosecution has not lead evidence of even a single witness since
the date of framing of charge, in such situation if ld. ACJM had concluded
the proceedings on the plea of guilt of the accused and also ensuring the
awarding of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to revisionist herein, there is no
impropriety or illegality in the impugned orders.
24. Ld. Counsel for revisionist while relying upon the judgment of
Apex Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad‘s case (supra), submitted that
there was no prior inquiry or examining the facts and evidence, before
awarding the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- by ld. ACJM. Hon’ble Apex
Court in that case while interpreting the provisions of Section 357 Cr.PC,
has laid down that it is mandatory for the criminal court to examine the
question of compensation, while deciding any matter and to have an
inquiry of relevant facts before determining the quantum of compensation.
In the presence case also, ld. ACJM had taken note of the age of the SHELENDER
MALIK
_____________________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by
SHELENDER MALIK
Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.17 Date: 2025.08.05
15:57:23 +0530
accused, prolonged trial of the matter and the fact that when other co-
accused persons were convicted in plea bargaining, more or less similar
amount of compensation was awarded. This court finds that such taking of
facts into consideration was as per law. Awarding of compensation needs
to be just and proper. As such this court does not find any impropriety in
the impugned orders. Accordingly revision petition stands dismissed.
25. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by SHELENDER SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2025.08.05 15:57:27 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Shailender Malik) on 05.08.2025 Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI-21 RACC/New Delhi
_____________________________________________________________________
Sanjeev Kumar Garg vs. CBI & Anr. Page No.18