Delhi High Court
Bachu Singh vs C.B.I on 24 February, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 13th November, 2025
Pronounced on: 24th February, 2026
+ CRL.REV.P.320/2004
BACHU SINGH
S/o Shri Hira Lal Lawania,
R/o B-70, Sector 36, Noida (U.P.). .....Petitioner
Through: Mrs. Anita Sahani with Dr. Shiv
Kumar Tiwari, Advocates.
versus
C.B.I. .....Respondent
Through: Mrs. Anubha Bhardwaj SPP for CBI,
along with Ms. Anchal Kashyap &
Ms. Ananya Shamshery, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Petition under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been filed against the Order dated 12.04.2004, whereby learned MM had
allowed the Application of the Respondent/CBI for condonation of delay in
filing the Chargesheet in case RC-46(A/97-DLI) under Section 168 IPC.
2. The brief facts as per the CBI, are that one Brahampal Singh,
Assistant Director and other officials of Horticulture Department of MCD,
entered into a criminal conspiracy with Smt. Neelam Sharma (Wife of the
Petitioner Bachu Singh) proprietor of M/s. Royal Enterprises to cheat the
Department and the aforesaid RC, was registered. During the course of
CRL.REV.P.320/2004 Page 1 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
17:20:33
investigations, the house of the Petitioner was raided on 24.11.1995 and
some documents were recovered from the house, which were seized by the
Investigating Officer Inspector D.M. Sharma, CBI. Further Intelligence
Reports were received that the Petitioner Bachu Singh (husband of Smt.
Neelam Singh) had been carrying on private business though he was a
Public Servant.
3. On the basis of this Intelligence Report, Preliminary Enquiry vide
PE-21(A/96-DLI) was registered, on 23.12.1996. During the PE, summons
were issued to several witnesses under Section 160 Cr.P.C. including the
present Petitioner, who were examined by CBI.
4. On 07.05.1997, Inspector D.M. Sharma gave a Complaint to the
Superintendent of Police, CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch for taking legal
action against the Petitioner. On 13.06.1997, present RC under Section 168
IPC, was registered.
5. Since the offence alleged was non-cognizable, an Application for
permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. to investigate the case, was made
to Learned MM, which was allowed on 29.07.1997.
6. After completion of investigations, Chargesheet dated 28.07.1998,
for the offence under Section 168 IPC, was filed against the Petitioner
before the learned MM, New Delhi. Along with the Chargesheet, an
Application was also filed seeking condonation of delay of one and a half
months, in filing the Chargesheet. The Application was allowed and the
Summons were issued to the Petitioner, on 18.08.1998.
7. Coming to know about the issuance of Summons, Petitioner filed
Criminal Miscellaneous Main No.2391/1999, to challenge the Order dated
CRL.REV.P.320/2004 Page 2 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
17:20:33
18.08.1998 condoning the delay in filing the Chargesheet. The Petition was
allowed by this Court vide Order dated 14.12.1999 and the learned Trial
Court was directed to decide the condonation Application afresh, after
hearing both the parties.
8. The Petitioner filed the Reply to the Application of the CBI for
condonation of delay.
9. The learned Trial Court, vide its Order dated 27.08.2002, allowed
the Application by observing that there was a delay of 45 days beyond
the control of CBI and condoned the delay.
10. The Petitioner once again preferred Revision Petition No.842/2002
and this Court vide Order dated 06.11.2003, again directed the learned Trial
Court to ascertain, what was the point of time of the knowledge of the CBI
about the commission of the offence by the Petitioner.
11. The learned Trial Court in its Order dated 12.04.2004, held that the
knowledge of CBI regarding commission of the offence by the Accused,
was the day when the FIR was registered. It was observed that before
then, only the facts were being verified and it could not be said that the CBI
was aware of the commission of the offence by the Accused or that it
delayed the investigations deliberately. Furthermore, there was material on
record to proceed under Sections 419/160 IPC. Therefore, the contentions of
the Petitioner claiming that the Chargesheet was barred by limitation, was
rejected.
12. Aggrieved by the said Order condoning the delay in filing the
Charge-Sheet, the present Revision Petition has been filed.
CRL.REV.P.320/2004 Page 3 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
17:20:33
13. The grounds of challenge are that the Order dated 12.04.2004, is
contrary to facts and law. It has been erroneously held that the knowledge of
the CBI, regarding commission of offence by the Accused, arose on the day
when the FIR was registered or that the CBI, before then, was not aware
about the commission of the offence by the Accused. Section 469 Cr.P.C.
does not refer to the date of registration of FIR, but to the date of knowledge
of the commission of offence. It has not been appreciated that the documents
were seized on 24.11.1995. On the basis of Intelligence Report, a PE was
registered on 23.12.1996. It is thus, clear that CBI came to know about the
commission of offence on 24.11.1995. Even if it is assumed that CBI had no
knowledge on 24.11.1995, it definitely came to its knowledge before the PE
was registered on 23.12.1996.
14. Furthermore, the Order under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. dated
29.07.1997 was void ab initio as itself suffered from the bar of limitation,
under Sections 468 and 469 of Cr.P.C.
15. The matter had been remanded by this Court only for the limited
purpose to ascertain as to the point of time of knowledge of CBI about the
commission of the offence by the Petitioner and to determine the time barred
prosecution in respect of Chargesheet under Section 168 IPC. It has not been
considered that a right had accrued in favour of the Accused under Section
468 of Cr.P.C.,x by efflux of time. The Order of the learned Trial Court, is
bad in law and is liable to be set aside.
16. The Petitioner, in support of his Petition, has filed the written
submissions which are on similar lines.
CRL.REV.P.320/2004 Page 4 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
17:20:33
17. Learned Add. Public Prosecutor on behalf of CBI has argued that
there was a RC registered under Sections 13(1)(a) and (b) PC Act on
24.11.1995 against the Petitioner. During the search, documents were
recovered on 24.11.1995, which included Account Opening Form of the
Firm of the Petitioner. PE was conducted and it was concluded that no
cognizable offence in the RC, was made out. However, an FIR under
Section 168 IPC was registered. Since it was a non-cognizable offence, the
Application was moved before the learned MM, to seek permission under
Section 155 of Cr.P.C. for investigations, which was granted on 29.07.1997.
The investigations were conducted and the Chargesheet under Section 168
IPC was filed on 28.07.1998. There was a delay of 1.5 months, which is
liable to be condoned in the aforesaid facts and situation.
18. Moreover, running of the business by the Petitioner is a continuing
offence, as there is no averment as to till when the business was continued.
Jitender Builders was the proprietorship Firm of Bachu Singh /Petitioner
and therefore, the Chargesheet has been filed within limitation period and
there is no infirmity in the Order of learned MM.
Submissions heard and record perused.
19. This case has a checkered history and has travelled from 1995 till
date; the Application for Condonation of Delay in filing the Chargesheet
was considered three times. It was first allowed vide Order dated
27.08.2002, but the Order was set aside by the High Court in Revision
Petition No. 842 of 2002 vide Order dated 06.11.2003, whereby it was
directed that the learned Trial Court shall hear the matter afresh after giving
an opportunity to the Petitioner.
CRL.REV.P.320/2004 Page 5 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
17:20:33
20. Thereafter again, vide Order dated 12.04.2004, the learned MM
allowed the Application of the Prosecution and condoned the delay in
filing the Chargesheet and took cognizance under Sections 168/419 IPC and
listed the matter for hearing on charge.
21. This Order has been challenged before this Court by way of present
Criminal Revision No. 320/2004, which was rejected vide Order dated
21.05.2004 and the cognizance Order of the learned MM and addition of
Section 419 IPC, was upheld.
22. The SLP No. 3594/2004 was filed whereby the Supreme Court vide
its Order dated 17.02.2011, set aside the Order of the High Court and
remanded it back for reconsideration of the Petition of Sh. Bachu Singh.
23. It is the third time that the condonation Application has been
allowed by Ld. MM, which is under challenge.
24. The genesis of the present case lies in the search conducted on
24.11.1995 at the residence of Petitioner-Bachu Singh by CBI, in connection
with RC No. 103(A)/1995-DLI. During the search, certain documents were
allegedly recovered which according to the Prosecution, suggested that
despite holding a government post, the Petitioner was also engaged in
private business.
25. Insp. D.M. Sharma made a Complaint to Superintendent of Police,
CBI, ACB on 07.05.1997 stating that during the search conducted in the
premises of the Petitioner on 24.11.1995, from the documents recovered and
seized from different places, it was revealed that the Petitioner had been
carrying on private business in the name and style of M/s Jitendra Builders
located at premises No. F-2, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, since about 08
CRL.REV.P.320/2004 Page 6 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
17:20:33
years and he is the Sole Proprietor of the Firm and was operating cash
transactions, for which he opened a Current Account No.373 with Vijaya
Bank, Noida Branch on 17.08.1988 in his own name, which was supported
by the documents, i.e. Bank Account. It was also learned that he had opened
a fictitious Savings Bank Account No. 3860 with the same bank on
05.01.1991, in the fake and false name of Jitender Singh, who had been
introduced by him as being holder of Current Account No. 373 of his Firm.
On this Complaint, Preliminary Enquiry bearing PE No. PE-
21(A)/1996/DLI was registered on 23.12.1996 for the offence under Section
168 IPC, for the alleged misconduct of the Petitioner.
26. Thereafter, permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. was granted by
the learned MM on 29.07.1997, for investigations under S.155(2).Cr.P.C., as
it was a non-cognizable offence. During the PE, investigation was conducted
and several witnesses were examined under Section 108 Cr.P.C. Thereafter,
RC No. 46(A)/97-DLI was registered, on 24.11.1997. On completion of
investigations, the Chargesheet was filed under Section 168 IPC, on
28.07.1998.
27. The Chargesheet was annexed with the Application for condonation
of delay which was allowed, but was again remanded back by this Court to
the learned MM for re-consideration, who vide the impugned Order dated
12.04.2004, has condoned the delay and taken cognizance for the offence
under Sections 168/419 IPC.
28. The first aspect of significance is that the initial PE was recorded
under Section 168 IPC, which is punishable with the sentence of
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one-year or with fine or with
CRL.REV.P.320/2004 Page 7 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
17:20:33
both. According to Section 468 IPC, the period of limitation for taking
cognizance for an offence punishable with one-year and/or fine, has been
prescribed as not exceeding one-year.
29. The date of commencement of the period of limitation is defined
under Section 469 CrPC as:
(i)the date of offence; or
(ii)where the commission of the offence was not known to the
person aggrieved by the offence or to ay police officer, the first
day on which the offence comes to the knowledge of such
person or to the Police Officer, whichever is earlier; or
(iii)where it is not known by whom the offence was committed,
the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to
the person aggrieved by the offence.
30. It is, therefore, evident that the period of limitation is to commence
from the date of knowledge of the police officer.
31. The first fact which emerges is that the raid was conducted on
24.11.1995 and the documents were seized. It has been vaguely stated that
further documents were collected from various places and that more
documents were collected from the bank on 01.02.1996. On the basis of
these documents, it was revealed that there was an offence under Section
168 IPC made out against the Petitioner and the PE was registered on
23.12.1996 under Section 168 IPC.
32. From these averments made by the CBI, the first glaring fact which
emerges is that the raid was conducted on 24.11.1995 and the documents
were seized reflecting that the Petitioner was running a sole proprietorship
CRL.REV.P.320/2004 Page 8 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
17:20:33
business, in the name and style of M/s Jitendra Builders. The date of
knowledge of the alleged offence thus, date back to 24.11.1995 or at best,
01.02.1996, when the documents were collected from the Bank.
33. The claim of the CBI that subsequently the Preliminary Enquiry was
conducted in which statements of the witnesses were recorded and the
offence was prima facie made out, is not tenable as the documents
disclosing the alleged commission of offence relate back to 24.11.1995. The
commencement of the period of limitation, therefore, commences from
24.11.1995 or 01.02.1996, and not from the date of registration of the
present RC on 24.11.1997.
34. The present Chargesheet in this RC has been filed in the Court on
28.07.1998, i.e. after a period of about 03 years, which is blatantly barred by
limitation.
35. The grounds stated by CBI for condonation of delay was that these
documents had been seized in RC No. 103(A)/1995-DLI and the documents
were not made available for investigation. Thereafter, with the permission of
the learned Special Judge, inspection of the documents/taking of photograph
by the expert in the Court premises was allowed, after which the
examination of the questioned documents was undertaken.
36. The documents were inspected and necessary photographs taken by
the Expert, for the comparison with the admitted hand writing. The opinion
of the Handwriting Expert was received on 26.03.1998, but the admitted
documents could be returned only on 20.07.1998. The Chargesheet could
not be filed earlier for want of CFSL Report, even though the investigation
was complete.
CRL.REV.P.320/2004 Page 9 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
17:20:33
37. This ground agitated by CBI again does not appeal to reason. The
Expert’s Report was only a corroborative piece of evidence, which could
have very well been filed along with the Supplementary Chargesheet. Prima
facie, the offence of doing a business was disclosed from the seizure of the
documents itself. Therefore, to claim that the delay was on account of the
time taken by FSL in giving this Report, is not tenable.
38. The next aspect which emerges is that the Application for
condonation of delay in filing of the Chargesheet was first condoned by
learned MM vide Order dated 27.08.2002 and the cognizance was taken for
the offence under Section 168 IPC under which the Chargesheet has been
filed. While the Order in condonation Application were being challenged at
different levels, an Application dated 11.11.2003 was filed on behalf of CBI
for the additional charge under Sections 419/420 IPC.
39. Pertinently, there was no Supplementary Chargesheet filed under
these offences. The question is whether from the averments made in the
Chargesheet, these additional offences under Section 419/420 IPC were
made out. As per the Chargesheet, the allegations are that on investigation
from the Bank, it was found that the Petitioner has his own current Account
No. 373 with Vijaya Bank, Noida Branch wherein he was operating the cash
transactions of his business in the name of M/s Jitendra Builders. Moreover,
it was found that he had introduced one Jitender Singh on 05.01.1991, for
opening of a Savings Account No.3860, and this Jitender Singh was found
to be a fake name.
40. Pertinently, while there were allegations of there being a Current
Account in the name of the Petitioner, in which cash transactions were being
CRL.REV.P.320/2004 Page 10 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
17:20:33
done, there was neither any supporting evidence that for the allegations of
the Petitioner doing a business as a Sole Proprietor.
41. A number of documents including Bank letterheads of M/s Jitender
Builders and passbook, cheque-books of this Account were recovered during
search of the residential premises of Sh. Bachu Singh Lavania, on
24.11.1995, in RC No. 103(A)/95-DLI. As per the CBI, nothing
incriminating was found in this RC, which was closed. This aspect assumes
significance in ascertaining the culpability of the Petitioner.
42. The next contention for seeking condonation was that subsequently,
CBI had moved an Application on 11.11.2003, for including the offence
under Section 419 IPC as some time was taken in getting the specimen hand
writing and signatures. From the allegations contained in the Chargesheet,
the only offence prime facie disclosed was under Section 168 IPC. The
Prosecution-CBI subsequently in order to overcome the limitation, had
moved an Application on 11.11.2003 for including the offence under
Section 419 IPC, i.e. Cheating by Personation.
43. As discussed above, allegations made in the Chargesheet and the
documents so collected, merely reflecting an offence under Section 168 IPC.
It was the claim of the Prosecution that the Petitioner had introduced one
Jitender Singh for opening his account in the Vijaya Bank, Noida. Merely
because he introduced a person for opening his Account, cannot be termed
as impersonation, when there is no evidence whatsoever, in the Charge-
Sheet about the non-existence of the person by the name of Jitender Singh.
Simplicitor introduction of a person for opening of an Account, cannot even
prima facie make out a case under S.419 IPC. Moreover, the Charge Sheet
CRL.REV.P.320/2004 Page 11 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
17:20:33
was filed after obtaining the Expert opinion, despite which there was no
invocation of S.419 IPC, in the Charge-Sheet; rather delay in obtaining the
Expert Report was cited as a reason for condonation of delay.
44. Significantly, the cognizance for the offence under S.168 IPC was
taken on 18.08.1998, though the Order got set aside. No grievance was made
by the CBI for inclusion of S.419 IPC, till the question of condonation of
Delay became contentious.
45. From the aforesaid discussion, it emerges that the Chargesheet was
confined to the offence under Section 168 IPC. The offence came to the
knowledge of the Prosecution in 1995, in the search conducted on
24.11.1995 or 01.02.1996, but the Chargesheet was filed only on
28.07.1998, i.e. after a delay of more than 02 years. It is not a delay of 1.5
months, as was alleged by the CBI.
46. There are no cogent explanations given on behalf of the CBI for
condonation of delay of more than 02 years. The Order dated 12.04.2004 of
Ld. MM allowing the Condonation Application is therefore, set aside.
Consequently, the Chargesheet is also quashed, as being barred by time. The
Petition is, hereby allowed.
47. Pending Applications are disposed of, accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
FEB RUARY 24, 2026/R/N
CRL.REV.P.320/2004 Page 12 of 12
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:24.02.2026
17:20:33
