IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 168 of 2010 Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Derhadun. .….Revisionist. Versus Raj Bahadur …….….…..Respondent. Present: Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the respondent. Date of Order : 1.9.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Oral) 1. Heard Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the revisionist and Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the respondent. 2. The investigating Agency in this case, which is the Central Bureau of Investigation has filed the aforesaid Criminal Revision being Criminal Revision No. 168 of 2010 challenging the order dated 26.8.2010 whereby their application for handing over the accused for police custody has been refused. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was caught on 25.8.2010 red-handed receiving a bribe of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) from one Dr. Vinayak Badoni. The accused i.e. the respondent, is an Income Tax Officer, and at the relevant was posted at Dehradun. He was subsequently taken in custody on 25.8.2010 when certain unauthorized weapons/arms were also recovered from his custody in a search of his house. During investigation, it was also found that the accused has various Bank Accounts numbering 18 in Dehradun, Ghaziabad, Meerut and elsewhere. Apart from this, the accused is operating several Bank Lockers at Bareilly, Etah and other places, C.B.I. required further investigations. For this purpose, the Investigating Agency sought police remand of the accused for five days. This application for police remand was rejected on two grounds; firstly that the nature of investigation, which the CBI wants to make against the accused, can very well be made while the accused in the judicial custody; and the second reason for denying the police remand is the medical condition of the accused as certain documents were filed before the Court stating that he should not 2 be sent for police remand considering his medical condition. These were the grounds for rejecting the application of the CBI. The CBI has now filed a Revision Being Criminal Revision No. 168 of 2010 and has prayed that the accused be sent in police remand. When the application was heard by this Court on 28.8.2010 and the relevant orders and documents were examined, it was found that the impugned order dated 26.8.2010 was passed after hearing the counsel for the accused namely Mr. M.M. Lamba, Advocate. Therefore in the interest of justice, it was thought proper that before the revision be heard on its merit and any order be passed therein, notice be sent to the accused so that he is represented in this Court as well. As such, order for service of notice on the accused was passed on 28.8.2010, and the counsel for the revisionist undertook to serve the accused in Jail. The matter is now listed before this Court today, after the above service respondent Raj Bahadur i.e. the accused is represented by Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate. 4. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision itself and states that it is by now well settled that a criminal revision does not lie against an interlocutory order and the order dated 26.8.2010 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, C.B.I., Dehradun being an inter locutory order, criminal revision is not maintainable. On this point, learned counsel for the respondent has referred Amar Nath and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (1977) 4 SCC 137, State Vs. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate 2004 AIR SCW 2828 and order dated 6.8.2010 passed by the Gujarat High Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Amit Shah & 1 (Special Criminal Application No. 1497 of 2010). 5. This matter was taken up in the morning and the preliminary objections were raised in the morning itself and the matter was then posted for after lunch session. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist has now come up with an application with the prayer that the criminal revision be converted into an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The instant application is 3 allowed. The criminal revision is now converted into an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Registry is directed to suitably make correction and renumber the case as an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Heard the case on merits. 8. Considering that the respondent/accused is an Income Tax Officer, who was caught red-handed receiving bribe of Rs. 50,000/- and subsequently unauthorized weapons were discovered from his residence and he is operating as many as 18 different Bank Accounts and Five different locker and this being a matter where the respondent has been charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is the considered view of this Court that a proper investigation be made in this case, for which two days’ i.e. 48 hours’ of police remand may be given. However, the apprehension and the objections raised by the counsel for the respondent regarding the medical health of the accused have also been taken into consideration. Looking into both these aspects, the following orders are being presently passed: “The respondent will be handed over to police remand with the Investigating Agency for a period of two days i.e. 48 hours. However, before it is being done, the following conditions must be fulfilled:- The respondent who is presently in Dehradun Jail will be handed over to the Investigating Agency by the concerned Jail Authorities after the respondent i.e. the accused is examined by the Chief Medical Superintendent or by a Medical Panel, as determined by Chief Medical Superintendent. The Chief Medical Superintendent or the Medical Panel will record its finding after medically examining the respondent. Apart from this, after two days police remand when the accused is handed back to the Jail Authorities the accused will again be medically examined by the same Doctor or Doctors, as before. The Investigating Agency will 4 keep the finding of the Medical Board in mind while the applicant is in their custody. 9. Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the respondent Sri Parikshit Saini states that he may also be given the service of the counsel, who will be present during the investigations/interrogations. The counsel for the C.B.I. does not object to this request. On this prayer made by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is also directed that in case the respondent so chooses, he will be allowed the services of a counsel of his choice who shall be permitted to remain present within sight during the investigation by the C.B.I. though he will not be given the right of hearing. It is further clarified that the handing over of the accused to the Police Authorities, as referred above, will be done in accordance with the procedure as laid down in the law. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the instant C-482 application is disposed of. No order as to costs. 11. Let the copy of this order be issued today itself. 12. The Registry may communicate this order to the concerned Jail Authorities and the Court below as well as Chief Medical Superintendent Dehradun by FAX or by any other means today itself or latest by day after tomorrow, since tomorrow is a holiday. It is further clarified that in absence of Chief Medical Superintendent, the Chief Medical Officer will perform the work of Chief Medical Superintendent assigned in the present order. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 1.09.2010 Rathour