DEVENDER UPADHAYA Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the CBI, who appeared on advance notice, have been heard. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the charge against the petitioner has been framed on 23.05.2006 by the learned Special Judge without there being an order on charge, insofar as the present petitioner is concerned.

(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of this revision petition are that there are seven accused in this matter. Some of the accused, including the present petitioner, were absconding and were declared as proclaimed offenders after taking out proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr. P. C. On 27.01.2005, after the arguments on charge had been heard in respect of the accused who had been attending court, an order on charge qua them had been passed by the learned Special Judge. The petitioner, at that point of time, was still absconding. The impugned order dated 27.01.2005 itself discloses the present petitioner as a proclaimed offender. The petitioner subsequently surrendered on 20.05.2005 and he was taken into custody. After several opportunities were granted to the prosecution, copies of the documents had been supplied to the petitioner. A similar number of opportunities were taken by the counsel for the petitioner for addressing arguments on charge. On 22.04.2006, the matter was again adjourned to 23.05.2006 for arguments on charge, insofar as the present petitioner was concerned. On 23.05.2006, the order-sheet of the learned Special Judge reveals that, the charge against accused Jagdish Chander Upadhayay and Devender Upadhayay (the petitioner herein) has been framed. It is also noted that they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the matter was fixed for arguments on charge, no order on charge has been passed and in fact, no arguments were heard on charge, insofar as the present petitioner is concerned.

(3.) Mr. Tiwari, who appears for the CBI, could not point out the order on charge and, in fact, he was frank enough to submit that there was no order on charge passed by the learned Special Judge, insofar as the present petitioner is concerned. Mr. Tiwari, however, submitted that the arguments were advanced by the prosecution on the question of charge at the time the order on charge dated 27.01.2005 was passed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner rightly points out that at that point of time the petitioner was not before the court and there was no question of any arguments having been advanced on his behalf or the prosecution advancing any arguments qua him in his absence.