Uttarakhand High Court
Rakesh Mittal vs C.B.I. And Others on 6 May, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Judgment reserved on:08.04.2026
Judgment delivered on:-06.05.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.211 of 2025
Rakesh Mittal .........Revisionist
Versus
C.B.I. and others ........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Ambrish Kumar, Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht and Mr. Rajendra
Singh Azad (though video conferencing), learned counsel for the
revisionist.
Mr. Nikhil Sabri, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Piyush Garg,
learned counsel for respondent no.1.
Dr. Aman Rab, learned counsel for respondent no.2, through video
conferencing.
Mr. P.B. Suresh, learned Senior Advocate, through video
conferencing, assisted by Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned counsel for
respondent no.3.
Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This criminal revision has been filed for setting
aside the judgment and order dated 30.01.2025, passed by
learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption C.B.I. Dehradun in
C.B.I. Case No.3 of 2006, C.B.I. Vs. Prem Dutt Raturi and
another, under Section 120-B r/w Sections 420, 467, 471,
468 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and for allowing the
application under Section 319 (Paper No.1177B) of Cr.P.C.
which was rejected and further to direct the learned trial
court to summon Shree Alok Bihari Lal (respondent no.2
hereinafter referred to as “Shree A.B. Lal”) and Shree.
Ganesh Chand Pant (respondent no.3) as accused to face
the trial.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that in the year
1
2001 Government of Uttarakhand under signature of the
then Principal Secretary Home-Shree S.K. Das issued one
Office Memorandum dated 16.12.2001 for recruitment of
Sub-Inspectors in Uttarakhand Police. Shree S.K. Das
informed the then D.G.P. that 253 posts of Sub-Inspector
are sanctioned by the Government. I.I.T Roorkee was
given a task to prepare question papers and evaluation of
the answer sheets. I.I.T. Roorkee entrusted the aforesaid
task to one Professor Dev Dutt Das. The tabulation
committee was thereafter constituted to prepare the final
results at the Police Headquarters. The Chairman of the
aforesaid Committee was Shree Rakesh Mittal, the then
A.D.G., and the members were Shree K.R. Negi, then
I.G.P., L.P. Mishra, the then D.I.G. Garhwal Division,
Shree Anil Raturi, the then D.I.G., personnel Police
Headquarters. After the publication of the final results writ
petitions were filed before this Court whereby it was
revealed that there were discrepancies in the marks of
written examination of seven candidates. Revisionist along
with other persons was charge sheeted with the aforesaid
crime. The revisionist during the trial moved an
application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to summon two
other accused persons which was rejected by the
impugned judgment and order. Hence, this criminal
revision.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that
there was a criminal conspiracy between Shree A.B. Lal
(respondent no.2), Shree P.D. Raturi (respondent no.4) and
Shree G.C. Pant (respondent no.3) to cook a false criminal
case against Shree Rakesh Mittal, so that Shree A.B. Lal
might be elevated to the post of D.G.P. of the State of
Uttarakhand instead of Shree Rakesh Mittal. Shree S.K.
Das, the then Principal Sectary Home had provided his
assistance to the aforesaid conspirators for their success.
2
In furtherance of the above criminal conspiracy Shree A.B.
Lal and Shree G.C. Pant were unauthorizedly present at
I.I.T. Roorkee at the time of evaluation of the O.M.R.
Sheets, they also illegally prepared a floppy containing
odd/fake marks in written examination of some candidates
and on 19.04.2002 unofficially bought aforesaid floppy
from I.I.T. Roorkee and Shree A.B. Lal had kept this floppy
in his unauthorized personal custody till 23.07.2002. He
submits that revisionist-Shree Rakesh Mittal joined the
State of Uttarakhand in the month of January 2002 and
was not associated with the recruitment process till
23.07.2002 and it was Shree A.B. Lal who was very
actively participating in the process of recruitment from
the beginning of the process and surprisingly after
handing over the floppy he deserted himself from the
further process of recruitment. Revisionist did not know
that odd marks could not be given to any candidate in the
written examination and the aforesaid fact was concealed
from Shree Rakesh Mittal by Shree S.K. Das, Shree P.D.
Raturi, Shree A.B. Lal and Shree Anil Raturi. He further
submits that learned trial court in spite of cogent evidence
rejected the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by
committing gross factual and legal mistake in overlooking
the relevant evidence of the concerned prosecution
witnesses. He states that Shree A.B. Lal and Shree G.C.
Pant were present in I.I.T. Roorkee without any authority
at the time of preparation of result. Both these persons
created such circumstances that Professor D.D. Das of
I.I.T. Roorkee had to call them at the time of preparation of
written test result, thereafter Shree A.B. Lal without being
authorized took the floppy containing written test marks of
the candidates and this floppy was in the personal custody
of Shree A.B. Lal till 23.07.2002 and only on 23.07.2022
he handed-over the floppy to Shree Rakesh Mittal. He
submits that unauthorized presence in I.I.T. Roorkee and
3
illegal and unauthorized custody of floppy for four days in
itself shows that Shree A.B. Lal and Shree G.C. Pant
conspired to implicate the revisionist. He submits that in
spite of cogent evidence and prima facie case against
respondent nos.2 and 3 the learned trial court rejected the
application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. which is against
the established principles of law. He relied on the cases of
Ashok Debbarma alias Achak Debbarma Vs. State of
Tripura, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 747 and Raghuveer
Sharan Vs. District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank and
another reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 2489.
4. Learned counsel for the C.B.I./respondent no.1
submits that the bare perusal of the impugned order dated
30.01.2025 clearly demonstrates that the impugned order
is well reasoned and based on proper appreciation of
evidence and the C.B.I. only after conducting a fair and
impartial and scientific investigation filed the charge sheet
before the learned Special Court (C.B.I.) Dehradun against
Shree B.D. Raturi and the revisionist Shree Rakesh Mittal.
He submits that the charge sheet is based on cogent oral
documentary and scientific evidence collected during
investigation. He further submits that the main thrust of
arguments of the revisionist is that the floppy brought by
Shree A.B. Lal along with Shree G.C. Pant contained
tampered marks is wholly untenable and stands
contradicted by the scientific evidence on record as per the
expert opinion contained in F.S.L. Report states that the
data from floppy was copied for the first time on
24.07.2002 i.e., after it was handed over to the revisionist.
Moreover the laptop of revisionist contained both original
as well as altered marks. From the official communications
it is also well established that Shree A.B. Lal had no role
whatsoever in physical test or interview. The fact that
marks of certain candidates were increased only
4
marginally, just enough to secure the selection, clearly
reveals that it could only be done by a person who had the
custody of both the written as well as interview marks. The
allegation that conspiracy was hatched against the
revisionist so as to Shree A.B. Lal could be promoted as
D.G.P. of State Police is also untenable as multiple
prosecution witnesses state that Shree Rakesh Mittal was
not the only person senior to Shree A.B. Lal and as there
were other persons senior in rank to Shree A.B. Lal
therefore even if Shree Rakesh Mittal was convicted he had
no opportunity of becoming the next D.G.P. He relied upon
the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in
(2014) 3 SCC 92.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits
that multiple applications under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
have been filed by the revisionist which have been rejected
time and again as sufficient evidence was not available to
implicate Shree A.B. Lal (respondent no.2) and Shree G.C.
Pant (respondent no.3). He further submits that bare
perusal of the official records clearly states that at the
relevant point of time Shree A.B. Lal was I.G.P. personnel
at Police Headquarters and therefore acted as a competent
authority to supervise selection process, it is also very
clear that he went to I.I.T. Roorkee as it was directed to
him by his superior officials as Professor D.D. Das was not
aware about the reservation policy of the State and needed
his assistance for preparing the result, in accordance with
the reservation policy of the State. He also clarified that
after handing over of the written test marks he was not
associated with the interview process or with the
tabulation process and in fact the revisionist was the
Chairman of both the Interview Board and the Tabulation
Committee. He also submits that as Shree Rakesh Mittal
was not the only person senior to him, therefore, no
5
occasion arises that on his conviction respondent no.2
could be elevated as D.G.P. of the State. He relied upon the
case of Periyasami and others Vs. S. Nallasami reported in
(2019) 4 SCC 342.
6. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits
that the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was
correctly dismissed after having found no evidence or
material on record to call respondent no.3 as an accused.
He further submits that the present application under
Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is gross abuse of process of law as
similar applications filed by the revisionist stood
dismissed. He submits that the revisionist has wasted
precious time of the court below by filing repeated
applications on conjecture and conspiracy having no basis
or evidence to support the same. The learned trial court in
its order dated 30.01.2025 has rejected the application
under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. as he did not find even an
iota of evidence against respondent no.3. He further
submits that his presence in I.I.T. Roorke was part of his
duty as he was complying with the directions of his
seniors. There is no evidence or even allegation to suggest
that floppy was ever in possession of respondent no.3 and
moreover the floppy was sealed with a tape and if any
mischief would have been committed with respect to it the
signatures on the tape would have been wiped out. He
further submits that power vested under Section 319 of
Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and extraordinary power which
can be used only if the degree of satisfaction is that which
is warranted at the time of framing of charges.
7. Having heard the submissions made by learned
counsel for the respective parties and after perusal of
material available on record, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order does not
6
suffer from any illegality or any procedural irregularity and
is based upon settled principles of law. I have gone
through the judgments supplied by learned counsel for the
revisionist and am of the opinion that they are of no use to
him as they simply enumerate the settled principle of law
which is that the powers under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. are
discretionary and are only to be used if there exist a prima
facie case sufficient enough to frame charges against the
persons sought to be implicated as accused persons. This
position of law has been enumerated by Apex Court in the
case of Hardeep Singh (supra).
Question (iv)–What is the nature of the satisfaction required
to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC to arraign an
accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) CrPC can
be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused
summoned will in all likelihood be convicted?
Answer
117.5. Though under Section 319(4)(b) CrPC the accused
subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he had been an
accused when the court initially took cognizance of the offence,
the degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning
a person under Section 319 CrPC would be the same as for
framing a charge [Ed. : The conclusion of law as stated in para
106, p. 138c-d, may be compared:”Thus, we hold that though
only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence
led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of
cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than
mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be
applied is one which is more than prima facie case as
exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of
satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted,
would lead to conviction”. See also especially in para 100 at p.
136f-g.] . The difference in the degree of satisfaction for
summoning the original accused and a subsequent accused is
on account of the fact that the trial may have already
commenced against the original accused and it is in the course
of such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly
summoned accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will
result in delay of the trial therefore the degree of satisfaction
for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to
be different.
8. The satisfaction required to accept the
application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was clearly not
met in this case. Moreover the allegations of the revisionist
7
regarding unauthorized presence and tampering of marks
also are merely bald allegations without any factual basis
as it is very evident from the statements received by the
witnesses that respondent nos.2 and 3 were authorized
and were directed by the superior officers to take part in
the process of recruitment. Moreover the fact that there
were several senior officers between the revisionist and
respondent no.2 also makes it clear that even if Shree
Rakesh Mittal would not have been promoted as the D.G.P.
it will not per se make respondent no.2 as D.G.P. of the
State, therefore, this Court is satisfied from the
appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Judge and
considers this case not suitable for interference.
9. Accordingly this criminal revision stands
dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
06.05.2026
SK
8
