Revisional Jurisdiction Is Not Meant To Test The Waters Of What Might Happen In The Trial: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court recently observed that revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial. The observation came from Justice Chandra Dhari Singh who also said that the revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below: "The revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial. The Revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below. While doing so, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case, rather it considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence. In the instant case, the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction since there is no patent error in the impugned order on the face of record." court said The revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking setting aside of an order for quashing criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner was booked under Section 420 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Petitioner V.K. Verma was the then DG, Organizing Committee (OC), Commonwealth Games, 2010 and other officers of the OC entered into a criminal conspiracy with Suresh Kumar Seenghal, Director of M/s. Premier Brands Pvt. Ltd. (PBPL), with Chairman, M/s. Compact Disc India Ltd. and others. The OC officers scrapped the process of initial Request for Proposal (RFP) on flimsy grounds after receipt of the proposal of PBPL, to extend undue favour to PBPL by appointing the said company as Official Master Licensee for Merchandising and Online and Retail Concessionaire for Commonwealth Games, 2010 (CWG) against a minimum royalty amount of Rs. 7.05 crores. PBPL, however, after earning a huge amount from the CWG band properties did not pay anything to the OC and the cheque amounting Rs. 3.525 Crores were dishonoured by the Bank on instructions from PBPL, which caused pecuniary advantage to Suresh Kumar Seenghal and PBPL and corresponding loss to the Govt. Exchequer. A charge sheet was filed on under Section 120B read with 420 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 upon which the Trial Court took cognizance and ordered charge under Section 228 of Code against the petitioners and all other accused persons under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 420 of IPC after the final report. This is the order that has been challenged before Delhi High Court on the grounds of patent defects and errors of jurisdiction. Petitioner argued that Special Judge has failed to appreciate the arguments advanced by the accused during the impugned proceedings. That the perusal of entire evidence, even if taken on face value, does not make out any case as is being alleged by the Prosecution against the Petitioner. "The impugned order erroneously records that in a meeting held in the afternoon of 24th February 2010, the petitioner raised objection to the 1st RFP which led to its annulment and paved the way for issuance of fresh tender (the 2nd RFP) making it possible for accused company (PBPL) to participate in the L&M program of Organising Committee. The impugned order erroneously records that the 2nd RFP was only for the left-out items from the 1st RFP and that the 1st RFP was at the last stage of formalization." He said. He further submitted that the impugned Order, without any basis, holds that the petitioner met with the Accused No.-7 Chairman, PBPL on 19th January 2010 and thereafter the decision to issue the fresh tender was taken. He argued that the impugned Order on Charge, prime facie is arbitrary, illegal and patently flawed and the main ingredients for invoking Section 420 and 120 B of IPC read with Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the PC Act are not even made out. Further he claimed that Special Judge, CBI has failed to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused no. 1, being the Petitioner herein, causing gross and manifest prejudice to the Petitioner and thereby resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. Impugned order on charge is without application of mind to the facts and circumstance. Further he argued that It was, the Special Judge had failed to examine the prayer for discharge of the Petitioner made in his written submission in reply to the chargesheet filed by the CBI and has ...

Revisional Jurisdiction Is Not Meant To Test The Waters Of What Might Happen In The Trial: Delhi High Court

Zeb Hasan

Tags