Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 3779/2015 & Crl.M.A.No. 14614/2017
DEEPAK KUMAR NAYYAR& ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sunil Femandes & Mr. Amav Vidyarthi, Advs,
CRL.M.C. 3779/2015 & Crl.M.A.No. 14614/2017
DEEPAK KUMAR NAYYAR& ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sunil Femandes & Mr. Amav Vidyarthi, Advs,
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Spl. PP for CBI with Mr. Prateek, Adv.
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Spl. PP for CBI with Mr. Prateek, Adv.
CRL.M.C. 1049/2017 & Crl.M.A. Nos. 4396-97/2017, 14612/2017
DEEPAK KUMAR NAYYAR & ANR. ^ Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sunil Femandes & Mr. Amav Vidyarthi, Advs.
DEEPAK KUMAR NAYYAR & ANR. ^ Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sunil Femandes & Mr. Amav Vidyarthi, Advs.
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.
Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Spl. PP for CBI with Mr. Prateek, Adv.
Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Spl. PP for CBI with Mr. Prateek, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
10.07.2018 The petitioners are facing trial in criminal case (CC No. 132/01) in the court ofSpecial Judge, Prevention ofCormption Act registered on the basis ofreport under Section 173 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
CRL.M.C. 3779/2015 &conn. p^ge ] of2
2018:DHC:8362 i (Cr.P.C.) on conclusion of investigation by CBI in RC No. 1 to 3 (E)/98
CBI/SIU-IX/New Delhi. By the order of Special Judge, charges were framed against the petitioners under Section 120B read with Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 201 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section
13 (1) (c)& (d) ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
While the petitions have been pending, the trial of the criminal case has reached the stage offinal adjudication, the prosecution evidence having been concluded, the statement of the accused persons i.e. inclusive of the petitioners having been recorded, the defence evidence having also been led and the case having been posted for final arguments in a schedule beginning
16'^ July, 2018.
The first captioned petition challenges the order framing of charge, while the second captioned petition challenges the order dated 01.03.2017 whereby the application for adjournment under Section 309 Cr.P.C. was declined by the trial court.
In view of the progress of the case already made, it having been reached the stage of final adjudication, the questions raised here in the context ofcharge are rendered more or less academic. Any observations by this Court are likely to prejudice one or the other side. Therefore, these petitions are disposed of reserving the right of the petitioners to raise the contentions urged here in context ofcharge at the stage offinal adjudication before the trial court.
JULY 10, 2018 nk
10.07.2018 The petitioners are facing trial in criminal case (CC No. 132/01) in the court ofSpecial Judge, Prevention ofCormption Act registered on the basis ofreport under Section 173 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
CRL.M.C. 3779/2015 &conn. p^ge ] of2
2018:DHC:8362 i (Cr.P.C.) on conclusion of investigation by CBI in RC No. 1 to 3 (E)/98
CBI/SIU-IX/New Delhi. By the order of Special Judge, charges were framed against the petitioners under Section 120B read with Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 201 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section
13 (1) (c)& (d) ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
While the petitions have been pending, the trial of the criminal case has reached the stage offinal adjudication, the prosecution evidence having been concluded, the statement of the accused persons i.e. inclusive of the petitioners having been recorded, the defence evidence having also been led and the case having been posted for final arguments in a schedule beginning
16'^ July, 2018.
The first captioned petition challenges the order framing of charge, while the second captioned petition challenges the order dated 01.03.2017 whereby the application for adjournment under Section 309 Cr.P.C. was declined by the trial court.
In view of the progress of the case already made, it having been reached the stage of final adjudication, the questions raised here in the context ofcharge are rendered more or less academic. Any observations by this Court are likely to prejudice one or the other side. Therefore, these petitions are disposed of reserving the right of the petitioners to raise the contentions urged here in context ofcharge at the stage offinal adjudication before the trial court.
JULY 10, 2018 nk
CRLMC. 3779/2015 &conn. page 2of2
2018:DHC:8362
2018:DHC:8362
JUDGMENT