HC dismisses appeal of Satyendar Jain challenging trial court order which declined summoning of documents

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the appeal moved by the Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain challenging the trial court order declining the summoning of documents in a corruption case. The trial court had declined the application moved by Jain seeking summoning of documents related to a bank locker raided by the CBI.

Justice Asha Menon observed in the order, "The learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 91 Cr. P. C for production of documents."

The petitioner Satyendar Jain had also challenged the validity of the sanction for prosecution. On this point, the High Court said, "The decision of the Trial Court, to consider the validity of the sanction at the appropriate stage, is not perverse."

The bench said that no grounds are made out to allow the prayers sought in the petition.

Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, counsel for the petitioner Jain had submitted that it was obligatory for the prosecution and the investigation agency to bring before the court all the material they had collected during the investigation and the same had to be also furnished to the accused persons, be the material in favour of the prosecution or the defence.

He had also submitted that unless and until all material collected by CBI was not placed before the Sanctioning Authority, the sanction for prosecution was itself invalid.

The contention of the petitioner was that during the investigation, the CBI had searched the locker, belonging to respondent Vaibhav Jain, maintained at the HDFC Bank, Chandani Chowk, Delhi. A locker operation Memo dated April 13, 2018, was also prepared and it was found that there were various original sale deeds of land purchased by the three companies held by the petitioner Satyendar Jain, namely, M/s Akinchan Developers Pvt. Ltd., M/s Prayas Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Mangalayatan projects Pvt. Ltd. The memorandum of Understanding between the petitioner and the respondents, documents related to cash transactions, and several other documents, including currency notes were found in the said locker.

Vaibhav Jain had also filed an application seeking the summoning of the said locker operation memo along with the documents mentioned therein. After that, the petitioner had also moved the application of summoning of the locker operation memo, along with the document mentioned therein.

The Senior Counsel had also urged that at the time of framing of charge, the petitioner had a right to show that he was not involved in any offence and if these documents, which included original sale deeds, were produced before the trial court, the petitioner would be able to justify his plea for discharge. But the trial court had dismissed the application.

On the other hand, the special public prosecutor for CBI Mridul Jain had submitted that these documents were not in their custody, as they were not seized. The locker was operated by Vaibhav Jain after the registration of the FIR. Though the senior counsel relied on the communication of 4 July 2019 between the Branch Manager and Vaibhav Jain.

( With inputs from ANI )