IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 87 of 2000 (O&M) Date of decision : October 09, 2009 Col. BS Goraya ....Petitioner versus State (UT Chandigarh) ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Petitioner in person L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Col. B.S. Goraya has filed this revision petition assailing order dated 24.3.1999 passed by learned Special Judge, Chandigarh, thereby framing charge against petitioner for offences under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act). I have learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Order dated 24.3.1999 passed by learned Special Judge is reproduced herein:- “An application is filed by the accused for adjournment on the ground that he has to engage some counsel. Heard. The order of charge has already been passed and that has been successfully assailed before the Hon'ble High Court. Today only charge sheet is to be served upon the accused. The accused being well educated no assistance is required today and Criminal Revision No. 87 of 2000 (O&M) -2- it is only to delay the proceedings. As such, let charge be framed as per order passed by Sh. M.R.Batra, the then Special Judge, Chandigarh”. After framing of formal charge, the following order was passed on 24.3.1999:- “Charge framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Now to come upon 7.7.1999 for PWs. The case would continue on 8.7.1999 if need arises. No short date is possible”. It is apparent from the above orders that order directing framing of charge against the petitioner had already been passed by learned Special Judge. Admittedly, the petitioner challenged said order by filing revision petition in this Court. The said revision petition was dismissed by this Court. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order has since been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 23.7.2007 reported in BS Goraya versus UT of Chandigarh, AIR 2007(SC) 3039. The petitioner vehemently contended that there are various grounds to assail the framing of charge against him. However, the contention cannot be accepted because orders dated 24.3.1999 now under challenge in the instant revision petition are only formal orders whereby formal charge sheet has been drawn against the petitioner. However, effective order for framing of charge against the petitioner had already been passed and the petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the same upto Hon'ble Apex Court. The petitioner contended that in the earlier revision petition, the main ground of attack was want of necessary sanction under section 19 of the Act. However, the petitioner cannot file successive revision Criminal Revision No. 87 of 2000 (O&M) -3- petitions. The petitioner should have raised all the points of attack against framing of charge against him in the earlier revision petition. The instant revision petition is completely misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, stay application bearing Criminal Misc. No. 44687 of 2009 is also dismissed as infructuous. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 09, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'