Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 903 (RAJ)

Baij Nath Garg v. State of Rajasthan

2013-05-06

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN II

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - By this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., revisioner-petitioner-accused has challenged the order dated 04.06.2012 passed by Special Judge, CBI Cases No. 2, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') whereby the application of the petitioner-accused dated 17.01.2011 for providing copy of documents etc. was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-CBI and also perused the impugned order dated 04.06.2012 and material available on record. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf the revisioner-petitioner has contended that learned Trial Court in its previous order dated 01.02.2011 adjudicated the fact that documents enlisted at Serial No. 9, 11 to 13 and 15 are not attached with this case No. 31/2011. Learned Trial Court has committed an error of law by altering its own previous order dated 01.02.2011. Trial Court has committed an error by reopening the issue of whereabouts of the said documents and reversing the previous adjudication, therefore, the impugned order is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. So, it is prayed that impugned order dated 04.06.2012 be quashed and set aside and the Trial Court be directed to decide the application dated 17.01.2011 afresh in accordance with law and the documents exhibited 9, 11 to 15 be not taken on record and be not read as admissible evidence. 4. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-CBI has opposed the revision petition and contended that impugned order is speaking one and there is no illegality in the order passed by the Court below. So, revision petition may be dismissed. He has also contended that the impugned order is an interlocutory order in nature and no revision lies against the said order because of bar of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. He has also submitted that the case has been hanging fire since long period and main object of the revisioner-accused is to delay the proceedings. During the course of arguments he has also placed on record order dated 05.09.2012 passed by the learned Trial Court, by which learned Trial Court has dismissed the further application dated 09.05.2012 filed by the petitioner-accused before the Trial Court and contended that impugned order passed by the Trial Court is interlocutory one. During the course of arguments he has also placed on record order dated 05.09.2012 passed by the learned Trial Court, by which learned Trial Court has dismissed the further application dated 09.05.2012 filed by the petitioner-accused before the Trial Court and contended that impugned order passed by the Trial Court is interlocutory one. Order dated 09.05.2012 produced by learned Special Public Prosecutor is taken on record. 5. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the revisioner-accused as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor and upon careful perusal of the impugned order, I find that impugned order is interlocutory and discretionary order against which no revision petition is maintainable. 6. Consequently, the revision petition fails, being devoid of merits, and the same is hereby, dismissed. 7. Stay Application No. 2382/2012 also stands dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******