Dipendera Nanubahi Upadhyay v. C.B.I

,r' 14, 15 & 16 o/o L7.9.2OO9 Present: Mr. R. Malhotra, Adv. for the petitioner in It. No.14. Mr. J.S. Bakshi, Adv. for the petitioner in It. No. 15&16. Mr. Harish Gulati, Standing Counsel for CBI. +Crl. Rev. P. No. 237l2OO8 Crl. Rev. P. No. 289/2OO8 & Crl. M.A. No. 637912008 Crl. Rev. P. No. 655/2O08

¶1This is criminal revision petition against the order dated 1ltr April, 2OO8 passed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi directing the framing of charge against the petitioner under Section 7 and 13(1Xd) punishable under Section I3(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with sectionl2O-B IPC. The order of framing of charge or directing framing of charge has been held as an interlocutory order by this Court in case titled Dharmbir Khattar & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2009 (IV) AD Delhi 657 and accordingly revision is not maintainable. The Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been relied upon for this purpose.

¶2The said judgment of this Court was assailed by way of special leave to appeal (Criminal) bearing No. 5150-5053/2009 which was listed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 24h August, 2OO9 and the same was also dismissed.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to re-agitate the said issue before this Court by urging that the learned Single Judge of this Court has not correctly appreciated the distinction a Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

¶4between V.C. Shukla Vs. State AIR 1980 SC 962 and State (Delhi Admn.f Vs. V.C. Shukla AIR 1980 SC 1362. I do not find any justification for reopening the entire issue which stands concluded by a detailed order of the learned Single Judge, av. more so the SLP has been also dismissed. t\ The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The Trial Court record be sent back to the Court concerned. v.K. SHALI, J.

5.

¶6r SEPTEMBER L7,2OO9 KP