SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. C B I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is listed today for further orders but in the available circumstances with the consent of the parties the same is heard finally. 1. Petitioner/ accused No.3 has filed this revision under Section 397/401 of Cr. P. C. being aggrieved by the order dated 19.3.2013 passed by the Special Judge, (CBI), Jabalpur in Misc. Criminal Case No.05/2012, whereby his application dated 7.3.2013 (Ann. P.3) for returning the original warehouse's receipt of 360 bags of Chana has been dismissed.

(2.) The applicant's counsel after taking us through the averments of revision memo along with the application and the impugned order argued that in the lack of such original receipt the applicant is not in a position to get back his goods from the concerning warehouse and if such receipt is not made available to him then not only the applicant but the nation may also suffer the loss. He further said that inspite making such document as part and partial of the charge sheet original receipt of the same was not placed with the charge sheet. However, he fairly submits that photo copy of such original receipt has been supplied to him but on the basis of such photo copy he is not in a position to get back his goods (Chana) from the warehouse. In such premises the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting his application is apparently perverse and under the error of jurisdiction vested in such Court and prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow such application by admitting and allowing the revision.

(3.) On the other hand Assistant Solicitor General argued that during investigation such receipt was seized, the same was made the part of the charge sheet and after supplying photo copy of such receipt to the applicant the charge sheet was filed and in order to prove the case, the same has been sent to Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Calcutta for obtaining the requisite expert report to verify its veracity and hand writing etc., the expert report is still awaited, unless such report along with the receipt is received same could not be made available on the record of the trial Court. He further said that the impugned order has been passed under the vested discretionary jurisdiction by the trial Court, therefore under the revisional jurisdiction the same could not be interfered by this Court. He further argued that there is catena of decisions in which it is held that if any order is passed by any subordinate Court under its vested jurisdiction then under the revisional jurisdiction the same could not be interfered and prayed for dismissal of the revision.