H.A. Siddiqui v. State through CBI

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? I{IMA KOHI-L J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner under ! Sections 3g7/401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC, assailing the order dated 22.IL.2010 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, disposing of an application filed by the petitioner on 31.08.20L0, whereby the sanction order passed in the present case was challenged.

2. Pertinently, the present case pertains to a charge-sheet, which was filed on 24.11.2003 on the basis of a sanction order dated 17.LL 2003. Cognizance was taken on the very same date. Charges were framed against the petitioner on 15.07.2004. After the prosecution examined 15 witnesses including PW-1, Shri V.K. Sharma, who deposed only on the point of the 2011:DHC:10826 'F sanction order, prosecution evidence was closed on 08.09.2010 and the matter was posted for the statement of the accused on 18.09.2010. The petitioner filed an application on 31.08.2010, which was dismissed by the learned Special Judge, CBI by the impugned order dated 22.11.2010, with costs of t[2],000/-, while holding inter a/ra that the application was devoid of merits and had been filed just to delay the proceedings, after a lapse of almost seven years from the date of examination of PW-1, who had duly proved the sanction order.

3. At the outset, learned ASC for the State submits that the offences under which the petitioner is being investigated are under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the present petition preferred under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC against an interlocutory order would not be maintainable in view of two judgments of this Court in the case of Dharambir Khattar vs. CBI reported as 159(2OO[9]) DLT 636 and R.C. Sabharwal vs. CBI reported as 166(2010) DLT 362. He submits that in the aforesaid judgments, it has been has clarified that in view of Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, no revision can lie against an interlocutory order passed in a case/trial/appeal or other proceedings under this Act. The impugned order in the present petition is admittedly one passed on an interlocutory application of the petitioner.

4. In the case of Dharambir Khattar(supra), it was held as below:- "22....The opening words of Section 19 (3), like Section 11 SCA, constitutes a non obstante clause that keeps out the CrPC entirely. It evidences the legislative intent not to permit a revision petition against interlocutory orders passed by the Special t Court notwithstanding the.position to the contrary under the CrpC" -W"nun the legislature. expressly excludes the applicability of. the CrPC by a non obstante.ruutJ,-'i-t *o'rO not be possible for a Court to overlook it and examine whether the order on charge is in the context of Sectio n 397 CrPC an order that is subject to revision""""

5. AsimilarfindingWaSreturnedinthecaseofR.C.sabharwa| (supra), where it was held that no revision can lie against an order framing ' charge under the. Prevention of corruption Act, on account of it being an interlocutorY order. _F,l

6. Counsel for the petitioner does not deny the aforesaid position but asserts that refusal by the learned Special Judge, CBI to allow the application filed by the petitioner, challenging the sanction order amounts to violation of justice. The petitioner shall have an opportunity to take such a plea before the appropriate forum, if necessary, after the trial is over, but not at this stage. +

7. The present petition is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable.

JANUARY 18,2011 rkb (HrMA KOHLI) JUDGE