Puneet Sabharwal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

              Puneet Sabharwal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

Facts Of The Case:

These petitions includes a typical inquiries of regulation as to whether a request coordinating outlining of charge or outlining charge, for a situation drawing in the arrangements of Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 is an interlocutory order, and whether such a request can be tested through (a) revision petition (b) request under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (c) petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act gives no court will remain the procedures under this follow up on some other ground and no court will practice the powers of amendment according to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, preliminary, trial or other proceedings. On the side of its conflict, CBI alluded to the choices of the Honourable High Court in State versus Navjot Sandhu, 2003 (6) SCC 641 and Satya Narayan Sharma versus Territory of Rajasthan AIR 2001 (8) SCC 607. It additionally positioned dependence upon the choice of the Hon’ble High Court in V.C. Shukla versus CBI on the side of the conflict that order on Charge in a corruption case is an interlocutory request.

Issues:

 In this case, a petition under Article 226 & 227, was filed which challenges an order given under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention Corruption Act,1988.

Arguments:

While arguments were being made before the Court, it was argued that despite the vittles of Section 19(3)(c) of the Act, the High Court’s authority under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remained innocent and could be used in the right circumstances. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Navjot Sandhu and Satya Narayan Sharma led to the argument being dismissed as being questionable. The following contentions have primarily been made by the learned counsels for the pleaders that an order of  framing charge or directing architecture of charge indeed in a case attracting the vittles of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not an interlocutory order and thus modification against such an order is not barred and the judgment of the Court in Dharambir Khattar’s case holding therein that a modification solicitation against such an order is not justifiable requirements retrospection by a larger Bench and the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been taken down by Section 19(3)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act and in suitable cases similar powers can be invoked, when an order framing charge or directing architecture of charge in a corruption case is challenged, by a person displeased from such an order. The indigenous power of this Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution can not be taken down by a statutory enactment, including Section 19(3)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This is also their contention that the compliances of this Court in the case of Dharambir Khattar to the effect that neither powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor the power under Article  226 & 227 of the Constitution can be invoked in similar cases are by way of obiter and do not constitute the ratio decidendi of the case.

Judgement:

 While stating the judgement the Supreme Court observed that, the procedures under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can not be adjusted. In proper cases, procedures under Section 482 can be adjusted. Notwithstanding, regardless of whether appeal under Section 482 CrPC is engaged, there can be no stay of preliminaries under the said Act. Depending upon the above alluded perceptions, the learned direction for the solicitors battled that the High Court perceived on account of Satya Narayan Sharma, that in fitting cases, the powers of the Great Court under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure can be utilized. Per contra, it was battled by the learned guidance addressing CBI that by mentioning the above alluded observable facts, the Court did not plan to say that the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be taken on even to save an interlocutory request in spite of the ban set by Section 19(3)(c) of Prevention Of Corruption Act and that, as a matter of fact, these perceptions would apply to procedures in which a request other than an interlocutory order is tested via procedures under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was additionally fought by scholarly guidance for the respondent that issue under the steady gaze of the High Court on account of Satya Narayan Sharma was regarding whether there could be stay of preliminary in exercise of abilities of the Great Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not whether an interlocutory order could be tested via a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

References:

https://indiankanoon.org

https://www.casemine.com

This Article is written by Rama Singh, student of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur and an intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin