Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav v. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

Mr. A. P. Mundargi, Sr. Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Raja Thakare for the CBI. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 27TH JULY, 2011. P.C.: The petitioner has approached this Court by way of revision challeniging the order dated 4th April, 2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Pune in Special Case No. 2 of 2003 by which the learned Special Judge has framed charges against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 3 (2) and 24 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999.

Initially, the very same order of framing of charges was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 2107 of 2009. While dismissing the Petition, the Division Bench observed thus: “In the instant case as well, the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner has already been rejected and the petitioner wants to re-agitate the very same ground as to whether there is any offence made out against him under the MCOC Act. It is pertinent to note that the order dated 2.108.2007 passed by the Special Court rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. has SM 2

904.revnst.311.11 reached its finality and the order dated 04.10.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 827 and 830 of 2007 directing the Special Court to hear all the accused and frame charge against all the individual accused would not give rise to provide one more stage to the petitioner to file a discharge application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.. The relief prayed for in this petition is nothing short of discharge from the case or to set aside the charges framed against him. The ultimate result is the same, and therefore, by relying upon the decision in the case of Bharat Parikh Vs. C.B.I. And anr. In Criminal Appeal No. 1076 of 2008, this petition is also required to be rejected at the threshold.” Challenging the same, a Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, while allowing the petitioner to withdraw the petition observed thus:

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the special leave petition, stating that the petitioner would like to file a revision petition against the order framing charges against the petitioner. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed as not pressed. Needless to add that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the submissions made by the learned counsel. As and when the revision petition is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merits uninfluenced by the withdrawal of the present petition.

Mr. Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel submits that since the S.L.P. in the Apex Court was withdrawn after recording the statement of the petitioner that he would file a revision against the order of framing charge, the present revision application is very much tenable in law. SM 3

904.revnst.311.11

I find that the present application is nothing but an abuse the process of law. The Apex Court has only recorded the statement of the petitioner that he would like to file a revision petition against the order of framing of charge against the petitioner, while allowing him to withdraw the S.L.P.. The Apex Court, clearly, observed that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the submissions made by the learned counsel. It is further observed that as and when revision petition is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merits uninfluenced by the withdrawal of the present petition.

In the teeth of the order passed by the Division Bench and, I am of the considered view that the judicial propriety would not permit me to entertain the said petition.

Mr. Raja Thakare, learned Counsel for the C.B.I., submits that the trial has progressed much ahead and 52 witnesses have, already, been examined and the present application is nothing else but an attempt to protract the progress of the trial.