Full Text
Translation output
I l-13
26.08.2011
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Harsh Prabhakar & Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advocates for
Mr. Pawan Sharma, Additional Standing Counsel for respondent-State.
+ Crl. Revision Petition No. 85/2009 & Crl.M.A. No.1874/2009 t<
This revision petition is directed against the order of 22no
November, 2008 whereby the Special Judge, CBl, New Delhi has ordered framing of charge and the charge dated 10th December, 2008, against the petitioner in case FIR No.2611999 in 'State vs.
M.K.Gupta & Ors.'. 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 19 (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.'
It is evident from the aforesaid, this revision petition against the charge 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 KumarJain Vs. CBI.'178 (20L1) DLT 501..
J lI
UNIL GAUR, J
26.09.2jIUrs
2011:DHC:19610
26.08.2011
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Harsh Prabhakar & Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advocates for
Mr. Pawan Sharma, Additional Standing Counsel for respondent-State.
+ Crl. Revision Petition No. 85/2009 & Crl.M.A. No.1874/2009 t<
This revision petition is directed against the order of 22no
November, 2008 whereby the Special Judge, CBl, New Delhi has ordered framing of charge and the charge dated 10th December, 2008, against the petitioner in case FIR No.2611999 in 'State vs.
M.K.Gupta & Ors.'. 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 19 (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.'
It is evident from the aforesaid, this revision petition against the charge 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 KumarJain Vs. CBI.'178 (20L1) DLT 501..
J lI
UNIL GAUR, J
26.09.2jIUrs
2011:DHC:19610
JUDGMENT