BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU

Sanjeev Kumar @ Timmy Age ____ years S/o Late Deshraj R/o Street No.1, 4th Chowk Near Suraj Nagri, Abohar District Ferozpur, Pubjab Petitioner

V/s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Panama Chowk, Jammu ..Respondent In the matter of:Petition u/s 561-A CPC for quashing the Order dated 19-07-2013 passed by Special Judge Anticorruption (CBI Cases), Jammu.

May it please your Lordships, The petitioner most respectfully submits as under:-

1.

That a false and frivolous FIR No.08/99 was registered against the unknown persons by the Crime Branch, Jammu on 06-07-1999. The said FIR appears to have been registered at the instance of Special Cell Delhi Police that fake arm licenses in pursuance of criminal conspiracy had been issued in violation to provisions of Arms Act, 1958, however the investigation of the said FIR was conducted by the respondent.

2.

That the respondent after conducting the investigation produced challan against four accused persons, two out of them i.e. Joginder Kumar Sahni and Surjit Singh Rana were Govt. employees and a case titled Joginder

Kumar Mehra is pending on the file of Special Judge Anticorruption (CBI Cases), Jammu.

3.

That Surjit Singh Rana died during the investigation and his name was dropped. During the pendency of the Challan accused no.3 i.e. Joginder Kumar Sahni, the then Additional District Magistrate, Jammu has also died and proceeding against him have also been dropped. Only two persons i.e. Joginder Kumar Mehra and Sanjeev Kumar are now facing trial. At the time of addressing the arguments for charge and discharge it was brought to the notice of the trial court that both the Govt. officials having died and their names have been dropped from the array of accused, now only private persons are facing the trial, thus the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act are not attracted so far the petitioner and Joginder Kumar Mehra are concerned. In such circumstances the case has to be sent back to a regular criminal court for trial and the Special Judge Anticorruption lose its jurisdiction to continue the trial the day Govt. officials died. The Learned trial court i.e. Special Judge Anticorruption without considering the submissions of the petitioner has allowed the trial to continue, has charge sheeted the petitioner for commission of offences u/s 120-B r/w 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 RPC and section 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act Samvat 2006 and Section 30 of Arms Act. A copy of the charge sheet is attached herewith as Annexure-A.

4.

That the trial court has been created to hear the case where the investigation is conducted by the respondent and in which the Govt. officials are found to be involved in the commission of offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, being a Special Judge created for a particular purpose has no jurisdiction to hear regular cases registered under RPC, those cases where the private individuals are only facing the

trial they are to be tried, heard by the regular criminal court having jurisdiction to try those cases, thus the trial before the Special Judge of the petitioner is beyond the jurisdiction of the court of Special Judge Anticorruption, thus the charges framed by the Special Judge are also beyond the jurisdiction of the court, thus the order impugned is liable to be quashed having been passed by the court having no jurisdiction. 5. That from the bare perusal of the charge sheet there is no material available on the file to constitute the commission of offence u/s 120-B RPC neither there is any evidence that the accused ever met anywhere and conspired to commit offence for which they have been charge sheeted as well as there is no evidence of meeting of minds of two or more persons. The absence of above mentioned factors which is sine-qua-non for the commission of offences of criminal conspiracy is sufficient to discharge the accused so far offences u/s 120-B is concerned.

6.

That the trial court while negating the submissions of the defence that there is no offence of criminal conspiracy has recorded a finding that meeting of minds of two or more persons can be even hatched on telephone, internet etc. though there is no case of the prosecution nor any evidence to this affect has been collected by the prosecution that the accused have hatched conspiracy on telephone, thus the trial court having committed illegality which is apparent on the face of record, which is sufficient to quash the order impugned.

7.

That there is no evidence against the petitioner so far offence u/s 465, 467, 471 RPC are concerned, these allegations were against Joginder Kumar Sahni the then ADM, Jammu and Surjeet Singh Rana the then Head Clerk Judicial. The prosecution has not alleged that the petitioner has tempered

any document/signatures, thus the petitioner has wrongly been charge sheeted u/s 465, 467, 468, 471 RPC. The petitioner has also been wrongly charged u/s 5(1) (d) r/w 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and section 30 of Arms Act, thus the order impugned is illegal, incorrect and is liable to be quashed.

8.

That the original alleged licenses have not been seized nor they are on the file of the court. A request was by the petitioner to the trial court to direct the respondent to produce the original licenses but the court has declined to consider the said request only photocopies of the alleged licenses are on the file. The trial court cannot continue on the basis of the photocopies nor the photocopies are admissible in evidence, this aspect was brought to the notice of court at the time of making submissions regarding framing of charge but the trial court has not considered and nor has addressed the same,. on this ground also the order is liable to be quashed.

9.

That neither any arms was seized from the petitioner nor the petitioner has been found using the alleged arm thus the charge u/s 30 of the Arms Act too is not made out against the petitioner, this aspect has also not been considered by the trial court, rendering the order impugned to be quashed.

10.

That the Honble Court u/s 435 Cr.P.C have the power to call for the record for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or proprietary of any offence, order recorded or passed, and to the regularity of any proceedings. In case the Honble Court considers that the petition u/s 561-A is not maintainable the same may kindly be treated as a criminal revision u/s 435 Cr.P.C.

11.

That the court has not properly appreciated the facts nor has gone through the record as well as evidence on the file, thus the order impugned suffers from material illegalities, irregularities which are apparent on the face of record. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the petition may kindly be allowed, the order impugned i.e. Order dated 19-07-2013 passed on file no.8 (challan) may kindly be quashed.

Petitioner Through Counsel