NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL No.948 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5112 of 2018)

 Srilekha Sentilkumar  ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai       ….Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final

judgment and  order  dated  04.05.2018  passed  by

the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal

Revision Petition No.445 of 2018 whereby the Single

1

Judge of the  High Court dismissed the criminal

revision petition  filed by the appellant herein and

affirmed the order dated 05.02.2018 of the XII

Additional Special Judge for CBI cases at Chennai

in Crl.M.P. No.5662 of 2014 in C.C. No.15 of 2014.

3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the

disposal of this appeal which involves a short point.

4. The appellant herein is arrayed as accused

No.3 in C.C. No.15 of 2014 pending in the Court of

XII Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai.

The appellant is facing trial for commission of the

offences punishable under Section 120B of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 7, 12

and 13 of   the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

(hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act”)  along with 6

other accused persons.

2

5. The  appellant (A­3) filed an  application (Crl.

M.P. No. 5662/2014) before the Additional Special

Judge for CBI cases at Chennai under Section 239

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter

referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) in the aforementioned

pending trial for her discharge from the case on the

grounds  stated in the  application.  The  Additional

Special Judge for CBI cases, by order dated

05.02.2018,  dismissed  the  appellant's  application.

The appellant felt aggrieved and filed criminal

revision petition  in the High Court at Madras.  By

impugned order, the Single Judge of the High Court

dismissed the appellant's criminal revision petition

and affirmed the order dated 05.02.2018 of the

Additional Special Judge for CBI cases giving rise to

filing of this appeal by way of special leave in this

Court by the appellant (A­3).

3

6. So, the short question, which arises for

consideration in this appeal, is whether the Courts

below  were justified in  dismissing the  appellant's

application  filed  by  her  under  Section 239 of the

Cr.P.C. praying for her discharge from the case.

7. Heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel

for the appellant and Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee,

learned ASG for the respondent.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are inclined to dismiss this appeal with observations

made infra.

9. Though Mr. Kabil Sibal, learned senior

counsel,  argued  the issues  arising in the  case in

support of his submissions with subtlety and

vehemence but having heard him at length, we are

of the view that all the issues urged by him need to

4

be tried on  merits in the trial after evidence is

adduced by the parties.

10. In other words, we are of  the view that the

issues urged by the appellant and the same having

been refuted by the respondent are such that they

can be decided  more appropriately and properly

during trial after evidence is adduced by the parties

rather than at the time of deciding the application

made under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.

11. It is for this reason, we have refrained

ourselves from mentioning the facts of this case in

detail nor we wish to discuss much less to record

any finding on the issues urged else any observation

or/and finding made by this Court while deciding

this matter at this stage would cause prejudice to

the parties concerned while facing the trial on

5

merits.  Needless to say, parties will be at liberty to

raise all such pleas on facts and law in the trial.

12. Before parting, we consider it proper to make

clear that the Additional Special Judge for CBI

cases will decide the matter strictly on the basis of

evidence adduced by the parties without being

influenced by any of the observations made by the

Additional Special Judge in his order dated

05.02.2018 and the  High Court in the impugned

order.  

13. With these observations, this appeal fails and

is accordingly dismissed.  

           ………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                          ....……..................................J.

       [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi; July 01, 2019.

6