AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this application, the C.B.I. has sought leave of this Court to relieve Mr. Rajesh Kumar, retainer counsel-C.B.I. in the High Court and to engage another counsel. It is stated in the petition that Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate was appointed in the High Court as retained counsel of C.B.I. to conduct cases in the High Court. The tenure of his appointment expired 17.2.2004 which was subsequently extended and lastly it expired on 17.2.2009.
learned Counsel for the C.B.I. submitted that this application seeking leave was only filed by way of ample precaution considering the order dated 24.8.2004 passed by this Court in the instant case. For better appreciation, the order dated 24.8.2004 is quoted herein below:
Since we felt that in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a monitoring of the progress was required as indicated in our order dated 16.8.2004, we are passing the following order:
Pursuant to that order, a report has been filed.
Heard counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation and perused the progress report filed before us on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation.
We find that though there has been some progress in some of the cases, in some of the other cases, the progress has not been satisfactory. It is submitted before us that for, conduct of cases in each court, one officer has been assigned and one counsel has also been; engaged full time. In other words, for seven Special Courts, there are seven officers assigned and seven counsel are also engaged. In this situation, we see no reason why the cases cannot proceed expeditiously. However it will be in the interests of all the concerned if the cases are tried and disposed of finally, as. expeditiously as possible.
It appears to us that in the interests of expeditious disposal, it would be appropriate to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation not to transfer the officers entrusted with the work in each one of the Courts or change its counsel in each of the courts without first obtaining the order of this Court by disclosing the compelling reasons for doing so. This will result in continuity and proper progress of the cases.
Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation submitted that the matter may be adjourned by two months so that a further progress report can be filed. We accept this suggestion and adjourn this case by two months.
The matter will be posted on 3.11.2004 along with W.P.(PIL) No. 370 of 2003.
Issue a copy of this order to counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation.
It is evident from the aforesaid order that for the expeditious trial of the fodder scam cases this Bench was monitoring the matter and it was directed that till the trial is concluded there may not be change of any officers entrusted with the work in each one of the Courts or change of counsel in each of the Courts without first obtaining the order of this Court.
Admittedly Fodder Scam Cases were and are pending in different Subordinate Courts. The word "each one of the Courts" denotes "the Trial Court". Hence, there is no order or direction of this Court to the Central Bureau of Investigation not to change counsels in the cases pending in the High Court. Moreover, it is for the C.B.I. or for the State to engage its counsel as per their choice and High Court does not come in the way.
We, therefore, do not pass any order whether Mr. Rajesh Kumar shall continue or he may be replaced by any other counsel. It is for the C.B.I. to take a decision in the matter.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, this Interlocutory Application is disposed of.
Let the Progress Report submitted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the C.B.I., be kept in record.