X

1. [PDF] NO.548 OF 2012 Shahid Balwa – The Judgment Information System judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40716‎    Sep 3, 2013 – Constitution of India, while monitoring the investigation of 2G related cases ….. petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Articles 226 and 227
2. Supreme Court on ‘inherent power of High Courts’ under Section 482 Cr.P.C :-  To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges leveled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence.
3. Delhi High Court: Ram Bhaj Bansal & Ors. vs Cbi on 15 September, 2010 Ram Bhaj Bansal & Ors Vs CBI:-    3. In Dharambir Khattar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 159 (2009) DLT 636, the Bench of Dr. S. Muralidhar J. after considering the provisions of Section 19(3)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act and after considering the legal position and after scanning through various judgments of Supreme Court had observed as under:”To conclude this part of the discussion it is held that in the context of Section 19 (3) (c) the words “no Court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial…” includes an interlocutory order in the form of an order on charge or an order framingW.P.(Crl.) No. 990/2010 Page 1 of 11 charge. On a collective reading of the decisions in V.C.Shukla and Satya Narayan Sharma, it is held that in terms of Section 19 (3) (c) PCA, no revision petition would be maintainable in the High Court against order on charge or an order framing charge passed by the Special Court.”

   4. In para 24, the Bench observed that a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would also be not maintainable

   “In the present petitions it was urged that notwithstanding the above legal position, the powers of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC remained untramelled. In other words, it was submitted that in appropriate cases, the said provisions could be invoked notwithstanding the statutory bar to challenge an order on revision passed by the Special Court. In the considered view of this Court, this argument although attractive also does not survive after the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in State v. Navjot Sandhu (supra). There a similar argument raised in the context of Section 34 POTA was negatived. An order by the Special Judge POTA regarding call interception was challenged in the High Court by a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC. The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought not to have entertained the petition at all. It noticed the judgments in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharasthra and Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan.”

   5. In subsequent decision in R.C. Sabharwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 166 (2010) DLT 362, the Bench of V.K. Jain J. re-affirmed the legal position regarding the order on charge passed by Special Judge of CBI being an interlocutory order and observed as under:

   “For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, I am in full agreement with the view taken in Dharambir Khattar‟s case as regards the interpretation of the expression „interlocutory order‟ used in Section 19(3)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.”