ADITYA NASHIER Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition the Petitioner assails the orders dated 15th November, 2007 and 27th November, 2007 whereby the Petitioner was directed to be charged and consequently a charge was framed against the Petitioner for offence under Section 120B/420/471/468 IPC and Sections 13(2)/ 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (in short the PC Act).

(2.) THE Petitioner had first filed a revision petition before this Court which was dismissed in view of the decision of this Court in Anur Kumar Jain vs. CBI, 178 (2011) DLT 501 wherein it was held that no revision against an order of framing charge by the learned Special Judge under PC Act was maintainable. Thereafter, the Petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the CBI at the outset has relied upon the decision in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. A. Ravishankar Prasad and Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 351 to contend that since the trial is at the fag end and defence evidence is in progress, this Court will not interrupt the proceedings and decide the present petition. Learned counsel for the CBI points out towards the statement of PW17 Deepak Mukhopadhyay wherein it is stated that the mix of bitumen mecadum is manufactured in the hot mix plant of the contractor and then carried to the site of the work by tippers. The mix is then laid on the road by mechanical pavers. Mr. Sharma further relying upon the statement of PW17 states that JE is responsible for 100% check of the contractor's work and measurement in the MB. He states that since in the statement of PW17 no distinction has been carried out between the work of JE (Plant) and JE (Site), thus JE (Site) is also responsible for the measurement in the MB book or the Contractor's book.