HN THE HIGH COURT 0F SEKKEM Crim'|n{ll Revision PpedltionNo.I Shri P. K. Pradhan, S/O Late K. 8. Pradhan, Sichey Busty, Gangtok East District, Sikkim. Vel.S|,S Petitioner. t`' State of sikkim through Central Bureau of Investigation Respondent. Present : Mr. D. K. Singh, Advocate along with Mr. P. K. Pradhan, the petitioner. Mr. 1. D. Vaid, Deputy Legal Adviser Advocate with Mr. V. K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the respondent -CBI. Mr. Vlpin Sharma, Inspector, CBI., ACU-V, NewDelhi. CginitnalRevision Petition Shri Sonam Wangdi Bhutia, S/O Shri Norbu Tshering Bhutia, R/0 Khamdong, East Sikkim. Verslls No.2 o State of Sikkim through Central Bureau of Investigation Petitioner. Respondent. Present: Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya,.Advocate for the petitioner. Mr I. D. Vaid, Deputy Legal Adviser Advocate with Mr.. V. K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the respondent - CBI. Mr. Vipin Sharma, Inspector, CBI., ACU-V, New Delhi. C€rj|||ji_n_alRevisionPetitionNo.3o Shri N. 8. Bhandafi,, RIO Samdur, Ranipool, P.O. Ranipool, East Sikkim Versl±s State of Sikkim through Central Bureau of lnvestigation Petitioner. Respondent. Present : Mr. BhaskarRaj Pradhan, Ad`n3cate for the Petitioner. Mr. I. D. Vaid, Deputy LegalAdviserAdvocate with Mr. V. K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the respondent - CBI. Mr. Vipin Sharma, Inspector, CBI.,ACU-V., New Delhi. grininal Revision Petition Shri Sriliiwas Agarwa], S/O Shri Chandu Lal Agarwal, R/O Jorethang, South sikkim ........ Petitioner Vel.SIIS State of Sikkim through Central Bureau of lnvcsligation ...... Respondent Present : Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. I. D. Vaid, Deputy Legal Adviser Advocate with Mr. V. K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the respondent - CBI. Mr. Vipin Sharma, Inspector, CBI., ACU-V. New Delhi. .- Criminal Revision Petition No.5 o State of Sikkim through Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Unit (V), New Delhi 1. Shri Nar Bahadur Bhandari. R/O Samdur, Ranipool. L'.O.Raiiipoc)I, Sikkii``. 2. Shri Puma Kumar Pradhan, IAS the then Secretary Rural Development Department, Govt. of sikkim R/O Sichey Busty, East Sikkim.. 3. Shri Nar Bahadur Rawat, S/O Man Bahadur Rawat, R/O Rawal Gaon, Malbasey, Block, West Sikkim. 4. Shri Harka Singh Chewan, S/O Dil Bahadur Chewan, IVO Malbz`sey, West Sikkim. 5. Shri Hari Prasad Rai. S/O Shri Pertuman Rai, R/O Pakki Gaon, Malbasey Block, West Sikkim. Petitioner ' ,`.I 1` "'!,,",` I, il '1 nl] in I,. I Corain : 6. Shri R. 8. Subba, S/O Raghubir Subba, R/O Pakki Gaon, Malbasey Block, West Sikkim. 7. Shri Hari Prasad Sharma, S/O Shri Bisl`nu Kant Sharma. R/O Pakki Gaon, Malbasey Block, West Sikkim. 8. Shri S. D. Tamang, S/O Shri N. P. Tamang, R/O Singtam, East Sikkim. 9. Shri Bhim Bahadur Gurung, S/O Late Bhakta Baliadur Gurung, R/O Sadam, Sikkim. 10. Shri Chctan Das Ghimirey. S/O Shri Padam Bahadur, R/O Pakyong Bazar, East Sikkim. 11. Shri Norbu Tshering Bhutia, S/O Shri Naga Bhutia` P.O. Khamdong, East Sikkim. 12. Shri Minjur Bhutia. S/O Shri Tshering Bhutia, R/O Singyang, P.O. Pelling, East Sikkim. ..... Respondents. Tlie Hon'ble Mr. Jiistice Ripiisdilan Dayal, Chief Jlistice. I'resent : Mr. I. D. Vaid. Deputy Legal Adviser Advocate with Mr. V. K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for tlie revisionist/petitioner -CBI. Mr. Vipin Kulnar, Inspector, CBl, ACU-V, New Delhi. Mr. BhaskarRaj pradhan, Advocate for the respondent No. I . Mr. D. K. Singh, Advocate along with Mr. P. K.Prad]ian, respondent No.2., Mr. N. a. Kharga, Advocate for respondent Nos. 9 and 10. Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya, Advocate for respondent Nos.11 and 12. Mr. Nar Bahadur Rawat, respondent No.3 in person in Criminal Revision Petition No.5/2000. Mr. Harka Singh Chewan, respondent No.4 in person in Criminal Revision Petition No.5/2000. Mr. Hari Prasad Rai, respondent No.5 in person in Criminal Revision Petition No.5/2000. Mr. R. a. Subba, respondent No.6 in person in Criminal Revision Petition No.5/2000. Mr. Hari Prasad Sharma, respondent No.7 in person in Criminal Revision Petition No.5/2000. Mr. S. D. Tamang, respondent No.8 in person in Criminal Revision Petition No.5/2000. Mr. Bhim Bahadur Gurung, respondent No.9 in person in Criminal Revision Petition No.5/2000. ` Mr. Chetan Das Ghimirey, respondent No.10 in person in Criminal Revision Petition No.5/2000. . . Mr. Norbu Tshering Bhutia, respondent No.I]in person in Criminal Revision Petition No.5/2000. Mr. Miiijur Bhutia, respondent No.]2 in person in Criminal Revision Petition No.5/2000. Date of Decision : 3rd october. 2oo|. thLt JUDGMENT All these Revisions arise from the Order dated 04.12.]999 ded on 31.1.2000 by the Special Judge, P.C. Act, Gangtok holding charges against accused No. A-I I Sriniwas Agarwa], accused No. fi:i:3edAun:er:euc¥::]a2nod_Ba:Cfutsheed]n::af-p]e5na:°cnoadmeaYdana::;;n:thauct::s:: N Se A A-1 Sri N. 8. Bhandari and accused No.A-2 Sri P. K. Pradhan under tion 5.(2) read with Section 5 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption 1947 corresponding to Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of tlie Pqevention of corruption Act,1988 read with Section 120-a of the Indian P a al Code. It was further held that there was no /?r/./77cr/crc/.e material inst accused Nos. A4 to A-10, A+12, A-14 and A-1,7 i.e Nar Bahadur R wat, Harka Singh Chewan, Hari Prasad Rai, R. 8. Subba, Hari Prasad S arma, S. D. Tamang, Bhim Bahadur Gurung, Chetan Das Ghimirey, N rbu Tshering Bhutia and Minzur Bhutia and so they were discharged. Criminal Revision No.5 of 2000 has been filed by the CBI on the that in respect of some of the schemes there is niaterial available cord justifying the framing of charges in those schemes but the es were not framed in respect of those schemes. It has been ted that Scheme Nos.1,10 and 11 were not even discussed. In ct of Scheme No.2, the learned trial Court held`.tllat 's~ince charge- had not been filed against R. K. 6oel, there was no ground to Perair:eeeddt:]at[h:hoeutftn::a,:a:fnascttaacnc:S]eadwN::r]eaasnodn,2s,nRceeas]:nag;Ve::o:yht:: \V en any offender has been left out by the prosecuting branch, the .. j§ 1 agistrate has the I.urisdiction to proceed against that person. This legal sition has been clarified by the Supreme Court in M/S SWIL Ltd. Versus State of Delhi & Another 2001 AIR SCW 3017 and also in Prasad Versus Bashir 2001 SOL Case No.554. Learned Counsel for the parties agree tliat the charges framed by e learned trial Court pursuant to the impugned order are not proper in rm. All the Counsel agree that the matter may be remitted to the learned al Court for considering the matter again after giving opportunity of ng heard to them. Accepting the request of the learned Counsel for the parties ;sent, I allow the aforesaid revisions, set aside the impugned order dated 12.1999 amended on 31.01.2000 and the charges framed pursuant reto and remit the matter for reconsideration after giving opportunity of ng heard to all the parties concerned. Parties shall appear before the rned trial Court on 18.10.2001. £4L ( Rip,`s,I,I,,n D`lyal ) Cliie.fJIIst.Ice 3.10.2001. RERTEiEB ap BE F_H-tiE c®B& ^T GAueTor n i il 1 \1 I