Full Text
Translation output
t-9
09.09.20LL
Present: None for the Petitioner.
Mr. P,K.Sharma, standing counsel for respondent/cBl.
+ Crl. Revision Petition No. 113/2009
,<
None appears for the petitioner even on the second call. Perhaps for the reason that this petition is not maintainable.
This revision petition is directed against the order of
22.LL2008, whereby the Special Judge, CBl, New Delhi has ordered framing of charge and the charge framed under
Sections 120-8 IPC r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 read with Sections 4091467l468l47IlILg of the lndian
Penal Code, against the petitioner in FIR No.2611999, Police
Station Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi, in CC No.36/2007 in case title 'State vs. M.K.Gupta & Others'. ln'Dharambir Khattar & Ors. vs. C.B.l.',2009 lV AD (Delhi)
636, it has been held as under:-
'32. To conclude this part of the discussion it is held that in the context of Section 79 (3) (c) the words "no Court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial..." includes an interlocutory order in the form of an order on charge or an'order framing charge. On a collective reading of the decisions in
V.C.Shukla and Satya Narayan Sharma, it is held that in terms of Section 79 (3) (c) PCA, no revision petition would be maintainable in the High Court against order on charge or an order framing charge passed by the Special Court.'
Crl.Rev.P.N o.lL3 /2009 Page 1
2011:DHC:19627
-c
In the light of the aforesaid, this revision petition against the impugned order and charges framed is not maintainable'
This petition is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedy as available in law in the light of the verdict of the Division Bench of this Court in 'Anur
Kumar Jain Vs. CBI.' L78 (20L1) DLT 501'
09,09 .20rr rs t\ tL GAUR, J
Crl.Rev.P.N o.LL3 / 2009
Page2
2011:DHC:19627
09.09.20LL
Present: None for the Petitioner.
Mr. P,K.Sharma, standing counsel for respondent/cBl.
+ Crl. Revision Petition No. 113/2009
,<
None appears for the petitioner even on the second call. Perhaps for the reason that this petition is not maintainable.
This revision petition is directed against the order of
22.LL2008, whereby the Special Judge, CBl, New Delhi has ordered framing of charge and the charge framed under
Sections 120-8 IPC r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 read with Sections 4091467l468l47IlILg of the lndian
Penal Code, against the petitioner in FIR No.2611999, Police
Station Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi, in CC No.36/2007 in case title 'State vs. M.K.Gupta & Others'. ln'Dharambir Khattar & Ors. vs. C.B.l.',2009 lV AD (Delhi)
636, it has been held as under:-
'32. To conclude this part of the discussion it is held that in the context of Section 79 (3) (c) the words "no Court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial..." includes an interlocutory order in the form of an order on charge or an'order framing charge. On a collective reading of the decisions in
V.C.Shukla and Satya Narayan Sharma, it is held that in terms of Section 79 (3) (c) PCA, no revision petition would be maintainable in the High Court against order on charge or an order framing charge passed by the Special Court.'
Crl.Rev.P.N o.lL3 /2009 Page 1
2011:DHC:19627
-c
In the light of the aforesaid, this revision petition against the impugned order and charges framed is not maintainable'
This petition is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedy as available in law in the light of the verdict of the Division Bench of this Court in 'Anur
Kumar Jain Vs. CBI.' L78 (20L1) DLT 501'
09,09 .20rr rs t\ tL GAUR, J
Crl.Rev.P.N o.LL3 / 2009
Page2
2011:DHC:19627
JUDGMENT