MANMOHAN, J :The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 13th October, 2006 passed by Ms. Reena Singh Nag, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby the revision petition filed by the Respondent-CBI has been allowed and the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 17th November, 2004 has been set aside.M.C. No. 269/2007 Page 1 of 11M.C. No. 269/2007 Page 1 of 11Briefly stated, the fact of this case are that on 24th February, 1998 CBI registered a case bearing RC No. 4(S)98/SIU.I.After hearing the matter on various dates, the learned trial court on 1st June, 2001 framed charges against the Petitioner under Section 120B, 419 and 420 IPC read with Sections 120B, 468 IPC read with Section 120B, 471 IPC read with Section 120B, 511 IPC.By this order no charges were framed against the Petitioner under Section 120B read with Section 465, 467, 474 and 380 read with Section 411 of IPC and Section 12(1)(a) and (b) read with Section 3 of Passports Act. However, no reasons for not framing certain charges were given.The order dated 1st June, 2001 is reproduced hereinbelow:-"Present : PP for CBI Both accused on Bail with counsel.Arguments on the point of sentence heard.Prima facie case is made out against both the accused for offence under Section 120B IPC, 419, 420 r/w section 120B IPC, 468 r/w section 120B IPC, 471 r/w section 120B IPC, 511 r/w section 419, 420 r/w section 120B IPC and accordingly charge framed to which accused pleaded not guilty.To come for PE for 8.8.2001, 9.8.2001 and 10.8.2001 Sd/-M.C. No. 269/2007 Page 2 of 11On 6th August, 2001 the Petitioner filed a Revision Petition bearing CR (R) No. 29/2001 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge against the order dated 1st June, 2001 framing charges against the Petitioner- Accused.Before receiving any notice of Petitioner's revision petition, on 8th August, 2001, which was the next date of hearing before the trial court, CBI filed two applications.While the first application was filed to place on record some documents, the second application was filed under Section 216 Cr.P.C. contending that the trial court had inadvertently not framed charges against the Petitioner under Section 120B read with Sections 465, 467, 474, 380 and 411 of IPC and Sections 12(1)(a) and (b) read with Section 3 of PassportsWhile the application under Section 216 Cr.The Additional Sessions Judge in its judgment and order dated 7th January, 2003 concluded that the trial court had rightly found a prima facie case against the Petitioner-Accused for the offences for which he had been charged.On 17th November, 2004 the trial court dismissed the CBI's application filed under Section 216 Cr.While setting aside the order dated 17th November, 2004 the Additional Sessions Judge directed the trial court to pass a reasoned order on CBI's application under Section 216 Cr.Mr. Ajay Burman, learned Counsel for Petitioner has contended that for the Sections for which the Petitioner has been discharged vide order Crl.M.C. No. 269/2007 Page 4 of 11 dated 1st June, 2001, no application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was maintainable as the order framing charges had attained finality.P.C., the order framing charges dated 1st June, 2001 had attained finality.He further submitted that in case CBI was aggrieved by the order framing charges dated 1st June, 2001 the only recourse open to it was to file a revision against the said order - which it had failed to do so till date.M.C. No. 269/2007 Page 4 of 11He further pointed out that by the impugned order dated 13th October, 2006, the Additional Sessions Judge had revised the initial order framing charges.Having heard the parties and having perused the file, I am of the opinion that the initial order dated 1st June, 2001, by virtue of which the charges have been framed, is a non-reasoned and non-speaking order.The said order records that arguments on the point of sentence have been heard.A perusal of the first revisional order dated 7th January, 2003 clearly shows that the said court only applied its mind to the offences for Crl.M.C. No. 269/2007 Page 10 of 11 which the Petitioner had been charged.Moreover, in my opinion, no prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner by the impugned order as evidence in the present case is yet to be recorded and the Petitioner would have full opportunity of meeting the charges and putting forward any defence open to him on the charges preferred against him.Therefore, the present Writ Petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.MANMOHAN, J September 12, 2008 rn Crl.

Cited provisions: Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code