Shantaram @ Shantilal vs Central Bureaue Of Investigation

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties taken up for final disposal.

Heard Mr. Akbani for the applicant and Mr. Sathianathan, learned Counsel for the non-applicant.

At the outset, the only grievance raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant-Shantaram @ Shantilal, who had initially filed the complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act seeking action against the accused, was not heard by the learned Trial Court before finally accepting the ‘C’ summary report filed by the prosecution in the crime registered pursuant to his complaint. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the closure report filed by the prosecution remained pending for consideration for nearly a decade. However, on the date when the matter was finally considered, the applicant-complainant was not present to make his submissions, and the said application came to be decided in his absence. No steps were taken by the Trial Court to ensure the presence of the applicant. He, therefore, prays that the applicant be granted one opportunity to put forth his case before the closure report is accepted. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that, interestingly, even before the learned Trial Court accepted the closure report, the CBI had registered an FIR against the Investigating Officer as well as the present applicant, alleging that a false trap case had been filed.

The learned counsel further submits that there is sufficient material on record, including the complaint lodged by the applicant. He further submits that the DVR could not be allowed to be taken into the Company premises, as the same would have been detected during the mandatory body search conducted at the time of entry. However, the complainant had used his mobile phone to record the conversation between himself and the accused. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that there are good grounds which, if considered by the learned Trial Court, may result in rejection of the closure report filed by the prosecution. Hence, he prays that the applicant may be granted one opportunity to place his case before the learned Trial Court.

As against this, Mr. Sathianathan, learned Counsel for the non-applicant, strongly opposes the application on the ground that the applicant remained absent on several dates and was also not found at the address furnished by him. Consequently, the applicant could not be served with the notices and summons issued by the learned Trial Court before accepting the closure report. The learned counsel further submits that the Investigating Officer had called upon the complainant time and again to cooperate with the investigation. However, the complainant failed to extend the cooperation. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the closure report. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court, after perusing the record and considering the submissions made before it, is just, proper and liable to be maintained. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present application.

I have gone through the order dated 11-12-2023 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.3/2015 accepting the Closure Report (C-summary) in Crime No.RC0282013A0015/2013 by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Nagpur, submitted by the Investigating Officer. Perusal of the impugned order itself shows that the complainant-Shantaram, did not appear before the learned Trial Court and in the absence of any assistance from the complainant, the learned Trial Court proceeded to accept the closure report dated 23-06-2015. It is significant to note that the said closure report came to be accepted almost eight years after it was filed by the prosecution. The submission of the learned counsel Mr. Akbani, that the applicant had initially remained present for the hearing of the matter, however, he subsequently lost track of the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court due to delay in consideration of the closure report by the Trial Court, appears to be probable.

Be that as it may since the original complaint was not heard before accepting the Closure Report filed by the prosecution, I am of the opinion that one opportunity shall be given to the applicant to represent himself before the trial Court. Hence, I am inclined to exercise the revisional jurisdiction to correct the error committed by the trial Court under and pass the following order :-

Application stands disposed of.

Needless to mention, this Court has not examined upon the merits of the closure report filed by the prosecution. The learned Trial Court shall decide the closure report submitted by the CBI on its own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in the present order.

Rule is made absolute in above terms.