Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CC No. 112/2023
CBI Vs. Seema Devi & Ors.
CNR No.: DLCT11-000850-202
14.05.2024
Present: Sh. A.K. Tanwar, Ld. PP for CBI.
A-1 with Sh. Sanjeev Bhardwaj, Ld. counsel.
A-2 with Sh. A.K. Gaba & Sh. Puneet Gaba, Ld.
counsels.
A-3 with Sh. B. C. Mishra, Ld. counsel.
Arguments on charge as well as arguments on
application seeking discharge of accused persons filed by
respective accused persons heard in part.
All the accused persons have stated that sanction of
prosecution sought under Section 19 of PC Act is bad in eyes of
law as the appointment of accused persons have been under the
signatures of Commissioner of Police, whereas sanction has been
sought from concerned DCP. It is stated that DCP is an authority
much below than the appointing authority.
Accused persons have placed on record order of
appointment of applicant(s)/accused of the post they have been
holding at the time of their arrest and have stated that this order
has been under the signature of concerned Commissioner. Thus,
as per law, removal authority cannot be below the rank of
Commissioner of Police and it is gross violation of not only
Section 19 of the PC Act but also the violation of mandate laid
down under Article 311 of the Indian Constitution.
Ld. counsel for applicant(s)/accused person have
relied upon the following citations in support of their
1
-- 1 of 4 --
contentions:
1. Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka, 2015 [4] JCC 2409.
2. Davider Singh Vs. State, Cr. Appeal No. 165/27 decided
on 11.02.1974.
3. Gopalbhai Mohanbhai Nagoda Vs. State of Gujrat, IV
(1993) CCR 3288 (DB)
4. State Inspector of Police Visakhapatnam Vs. Surya
Sankaram Karri, Crl. Appeal No. 1335 of 2004 D/d
24.08.2006.
5. Ashok Rangshahi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1996
(2) Crimes 39.
Prosecution, on the other hand, have strongly
opposed the submissions made on behalf of applicant(s)/accused
persons seeking their discharge. It is stated that submissions
made on behalf of accused persons are per se not maintainable
in the eyes of law and all the judgments which are relied upon is
not relevant to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
It is stated that applicant/accused persons have placed on record
certain judgments and orders of co-ordinate bench of District
Court Delhi where all the relevant submissions which goes to
the root of legal issue involved in the present case have not been
considered. It is further stated that such orders of co-ordinate
bench of concerned District and Sessions Judge’s/ASJ’s have
been challenged by CBI and final order is yet to be received,
therefore, any such order passed by co-ordinate bench of District
Court which is challenged cannot be said to have attained
2
-- 2 of 4 --
finality. Moreseo, all the legal submissions and relevant aspects
of law regarding competence of appointment by Commissioner
of Police have not been considered by the concerned court.
It is stated on behalf of prosecution that sanction
was granted for prosecution is in accordance with power of
appointment of such sanctioning authority who have the
competence to remove the public servant. It is stated that
dismissal of the accused and sanction for prosecution are entirely
different. In the case of police officials up to the rank of
Inspector and below, DCP is having the power to removal, as
per law. Moreso, the accused persons have been promoted to
the higher ranks and they were promoted on ad-hoc basis. A-1
is also promoted on ad-hoc basis which is yet to be finalized.
It is further stated that as per Delhi Police rules
such appointing authority cannot be Commissioner of Police but
the concerned DCP, therefore, the order of promotion of
applicant is bad in the eyes of law. Hence, accused persons
cannot take benefit of commissioner being appointing authority
of accused persons.
In this regard, it is stated on behalf of the
prosecution that the procedure adopted by Delhi Police in all
such matters where the appointment and removal order are
passed as well as sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of
the PC Act is sought can be verified from the concerned ACP
/DCP. The submissions made on behalf of the prosecution are
considered accordingly.
3
-- 3 of 4 --
Let notice to ACP (HQs) be issued for the next date
for the hearing seeking clarification with regard to appointment
of officials below the rank of ACP, their removal authority as
well as seeking prosecution for sanction under Section 19 of P.
C. Act.
Put up for further arguments on charge and
applications seeking discharge on 01.06.2024.
(PRASHANT KUMAR)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-07
Rouse Avenue Courts: New Delhi
14.05.2024
4
-- 4 of 4 --