HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 13 of 2005 Anil Kumar Bohra S/o Sri Hari Charan Bohra, Resident of Shrawan Nath Nagar, District Haridwar. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand, 2. C.B.I. through Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., S.P.F., Dehradun. ------- Respondents None is for the revisionist or for the respondent no.2, Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. G.A. for the State. Dated: July 30, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) has been directed feeling aggrieved with the order dated 15.05.2004 passed by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (CBI), Dehradun by which the learned Court below proceeded for framing of charges against the revisionist in C.B.I. case no. 1 of 1997 CBI vs. Suresh Chand Jain and others u/s 120-B, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in connected C.B.I. case no. 15/1998 CBI vs. Narender Kumar Jain and another u/s 120- B, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. The revisionist is also aggrieved with the framing of consequential charge dated 20.08.2004 which was framed by the Trial Court u/s 120-B read with 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and discharged the co-accused namely Vijay Prakash Sharma, Pawan Kumar Sharma, Pramod Kumar Jain and Kuldeep Kumar Goel. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent no.2 CBI submitted a charge sheet before the Trial Court against the accused persons, including the revisionist for prosecuting them u/s 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After submission of the charge-sheet the Special Judge, Anti- 2 Corruption (C.B.I.), Uttarakhand, Dehradun took cognizance of the crime u/s 120B, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused persons and thereafter the accused persons were summoned by the Court. Vide the impugned order dated 15.05.2004 passed by the Trial Court, the learned Court below found sufficient grounds and proceeded for framing of charges against the accused persons including the revisionist u/s 120-B, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Trial Court by the same order found sufficient ground and proceeded for framing of charges against the co-accused persons u/s 120- B, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. It is alleged that charge was framed against the revisionist for the offences mentioned above (there is no certified copy of the said charge annexed with the revision), which was read over and explained to the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried simultaneously, aggrieved with the framing of charge, the accused/ revisionist has preferred the instant revision. 3. The revision has been filed on the ground, inter-alia that on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the CBI, no offence as alleged is said to have been made out against the revisionist, because the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences are absent, hence the present criminal prosecution against the revisionist is an abuse of process of law. 4. None is present either on behalf of the revisionist or on behalf of the respondent CBI. I have heard Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondent no. 1 and perused the record. 5. By order of this Court dated 24.12.2004 the delay was condoned and the revision was registered to its original side. Thereafter the revision was listed on 17.07.2006, 26.06.2008 and 11.07.2008 before the Court, but none appeared on behalf of the revisionist. Today the revisionist is also absent. The revision is yet not admitted. The revisionist, on one hand is 3 challenging the charge dated 20.08.2004 but he did not annex the impugned charge framed against him rather he annexed the charge framed against the co-accused M.L. Bansal, and in that charge also the name of the revisionist has been mentioned as one of the accused who were involved in the criminal conspiracy. 6. I have carefully perused the impugned order dated 15.05.2004 passed by the Trial Court and the charge dated 20.08.2004 framed by the Trial Court. On perusal of the record and after going through the impugned order 15.05.2004 and the consequential charge dated 20.08.2004, I found that there are prima-facie sufficient grounds available on the record to frame the charges against the accused persons. I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned order. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed in limine. 7. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) 30.07.2008 NCM: