IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Rev. No. 167 of 2010. Date of Order:25.5.2011. _______________________________________________ Nita Deep Rastogi. ….Petitioner. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. ….Respondent. For the petitioner : Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General of India. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?.No. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). Learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that the evidence of the prosecution is practically complete and the remaining witnesses will be examined on 30th and 31st May, 2011. In these circumstances, it is urged that when the trial is complete, it would be open to the trial Court to pass such other or further orders in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner challenge the order dated 6th March, 2010 passed by learned Special Judge, Shimla in Case No. 6-S/7 of 2008 titled C.B.I. Vs. Parveen Kumar Jain and others, whereby the charge which was framed against the petitioner herein was challenged on the ground that prima facie even if considering the entire prosecution material accompanying the challan, without any cross-examination of Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment. yes. 2 the witnesses is considered, no case is made out against the petitioner herein. The case urged was that at best even if every material on the record is considered, it may amount to professional negligence but not criminal culpability by any stretch of imagination. The learned Judge, has disposed of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner by a very terse order which leaves much to be desired. However, since now the evidence has been recorded and is complete, I need not to delve into the matter any further save and except to observe that he should have at least applied his mind to the submissions made before him instead of just recording that written arguments have been considered. Surely, this is not the way of framing a charge. 3. It is a settled law by the Supreme Court that though at the stage of charge, the evidence/documents are not to be sifted with a fine tooth comb but none-the-less the Court cannot act as a mouth piece of the prosecution. This has been settled by a long line of decisions by the Supreme Court. What I find from the order is that the learned Judge, has simply brushed aside the submissions made on behalf of the prosecution as also the petitioner herein and proceeded to frame the charge. 4. Be that as it may, at this stage, it would be in the fitness of things/interest of justice that the following directions be issued: (a) The petitioner herein is exempted from personal appearance on every date of hearing. She will not make any grievance about the fact that the witnesses of the prosecution have been examined behind her back. (b) It will be open to the petitioner to lead such evidence in defence, if any, and if the circumstances so warrant. 3 (c) It will also be open to the petitioner that on the conclusion of the recording of the entire evidence by the prosecution to move the learned court for acquittal on the ground that the evidence in no way implicate them. This is the settled law. 5. That in case any adverse order is passed in any application moved, it will obviously be open to the petitioner to approach this Court in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of. 6. The disposal of this petition in no way endorses the charge which has been framed against the petitioner herein or the submission made by the respondent which shall be determined on the appraisal of the evidence on record. The prosecution shall ensure that no un-necessary adjournment shall be taken for recording the evidence. Cr.MMO.No.227 of 2010. The case of petitioner-Jiwan Paul Gupta shall abide by the same directions as have been issued in paras 4 to 6 of Cr. Revision No. 167 of 2010 titled Nita Deep Rastogi Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. May 25, 2011(R)