The Applicant has filed a revision application under Section 297 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 28 July 2023 by the Special Court for CBI. This order rejected his application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code. The case involves a property dispute under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, where the Applicant, a former Custodian of Enemy Property, is accused of conspiring with M/s. Jay Construction Co. and improperly withdrawing a vesting certificate and stay order.

1. Invocation of Revisionary Jurisdiction

   • Applicant challenges the order rejecting his discharge application under Section 227 of the Code.

2. Background Facts

   • Property in Bandra (West), Mumbai, jointly owned by Ms. Mariam Yacoob Tabani and Mr. Aziz Yacoob Tabani.
   • Due to migration, Aziz's share governed by Enemy Property Act, 1968.
   • M/s. Jay Construction Co. entered an Agreement for Sale with the Tabanis in 1980.

3. Actions by Previous Custodians

   • Mr. D.S. Kolamkar granted No-Objection for the sale with conditions.
   • Show cause notice issued by Mr. S.S. Sandhu in 2004 for cancellation of conveyance.
   • Ms. Ruby Srivastava issued a Certificate under Section 12 in 2005.

4. Applicant’s Tenure and Actions

   • Appointed Custodian on 14 November 2005.
   • Issued a show cause notice to M/s. Jay Construction Co. on 29 November 2005.
   • Sought legal opinions questioning the validity of the sale and vesting certificate.

5. Legal Opinions and Subsequent Actions

   • Ministry of Law and Justice provided opinions in 2006, validating the vesting certificate and sale transaction.
   • Applicant withdrew the show cause notice, stay order, and certificate in June 2006.

6. Transfer of Subject to Ministry of Home Affairs

   • Ministry of Home Affairs took over in 2007.
   • Issued show cause notices in 2013.
   • Revested property with the Custodian in 2014.

7. FIR and Charges against Applicant

   • FIR registered in 2016 under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act.
   • Allegations include conspiracy, improper withdrawal of orders, and securing vague legal opinions.

8. Applicant’s Defense and Arguments

   • Claims false implication and limited role in issuing and withdrawing the show cause notice.
   • Acted based on legal opinions and sought revesting of property to protect government interests.

9. CBI’s Counterarguments

   • Supports the Special Judge’s order.
   • Points to incriminating material and Applicant’s alleged conspiracy with M/s. Jay Construction Co.

10. Court’s Analysis and Observations

    • Detailed examination of Applicant’s actions and legal opinions.
    • Finds prima facie evidence of Applicant’s undue zeal and potential conspiracy.

11. Conclusion

    • Prima facie material against Applicant for trial.
    • Revision application dismissed, with no costs.
    • Clarification that observations will not influence the final judgment by the Special Judge.

Key Legal Points

• Section 297 and 227 of CrPC: Revisionary and discharge provisions.
• Enemy Property Act, 1968: Governs the property of nationals from enemy countries.
• Section 12 and 6 of the Act: Pertains to vesting and revesting of enemy property.
• Section 22A (amended 2017): Nullifies previous transfers of enemy property.

Court Orders and Judgments

• Dismissal of revision application.
• Observations not to influence final judgment in the Special Case.