ORDER : A. Badharudeen, J. This criminal revision petition has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as 'BNSS' for short] by the revision petitioner, who is accused No.14 in C.C. No.23/2016 on the files of the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, assailing the order dated 17.06.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.151/2025 in the above case, whereby the discharge plea at the instance of the revision petitioner was dismissed by the learned Special Judge. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), in detail. Perused the order impugned and the decision placed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 3. Parties in this criminal revision petition shall be referred as ‘accused No.14/revision petitioner’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter. 4. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, there existed organized collection of money by travel agents from passengers, especially those from weaker sections of society, on the pretext of facilitating their emigration clearance. A share of this money was being paid to public servants for facilitating smooth emigration clearance. The extra amount collected by the travel agents helped the unauthorized passengers to travel illegally and also the genuine passengers to travel with ordeals of emigration check. The Immigration Officers at the counter (Counter Officers) had wide discretionary powers to raise objection to travel of even a genuine passenger. On the other hand, the counter officers could illegally clear passengers with forged passports and Emigration Clearance Required category passengers on job visa without the clearance of Protector of Emigrants (PoE). The scope of detection of irregularities in travel documents is only at the emigration check point. The counter officers are duty bound to check the illegal travel. The 1 st accused is a Civil Police O and was working at the emigration wing of CIAL from 03.06.2003 to 15.12.2003 and 13.12.2007 to 05.07.2011. The 18th accused is a Civil Police officer and the 17th, 19th and 21 st accused are Armed Police Sub Inspectors. A1, A17, A18, A19 & A21 were functioning as Counter Officers at CIAL during different periods. The 2nd accused is the father of the 1 st accused. The 18th accused is a Civil Police officer and the 17th, 19th and 21 st accused are Armed Police Sub Inspectors. A1, A17, A18, A19 & A21 were functioning as Counter Officers at CIAL during different periods. The 2nd accused is the father of the 1 st accused. The accused Nos.3 to 16 & 20 are proprietors, private firms or representatives of different travel agencies and were engaged in the business of servicing of travel documents of emigrant workers proceeding to middle east countries. There were separate conspiracies between the above public servants, travel agents and passengers. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 11, 12, 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as 'P.C. Act' for short] and under Section 24 of the Emigration Act, by the accused. 5. While challenging the order dismissing the discharge plea at the instance of the revision petitioner/accused No.14, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that, the learned Special Judge dismissed the discharge petition merely on the ground that, charge against the 14 th accused was framed before filing the petition. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, even though charge was framed as on 07.04.2025, the same was in the absence of the revision petitioner/accused No.14 and as per Section 263(2) of the BNSS, the charge shall be read and explained to the accused after framing of the same. According to the learned counsel, framing of charge in the absence of the accused is illegal and in such view of the matter, dismissal of discharge petition on the ground that charge already framed, deserves interference by this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed decision of the Apex court reported in [1998 (7) Supreme 447 : 1998 7 SCC 149 : 1998 AIR(SC) 3148 ] Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab , with reference to paragraph No.15, wherein the Apex Court held as under: 15. It is clear that during the said stage the Court of Session can deal only with the accused who is referred to in Section 209. It is clear that during the said stage the Court of Session can deal only with the accused who is referred to in Section 209. The accused who can appear or can be brought before a Session Court at that stage is only that accused who is referred to in Section 209. Section 227 deals with the power of the Court to decide whether that accused is to be discharged or not. If he is not discharged the Session Court is obliged to frame a charge against that accused as per Section 228 of the Code. Thereafter the plea of that accused has to be recorded as enjoined by Section 229. The stage of evidence collection commences only next. (vide Sections 230 and 231 of the Code). 7. Opposing this contention, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that, in this matter, as early on 07.04.2025, charge was framed against accused Nos.1, 19 and 21 for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the IPC and under Sections 11, 12, 14, 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and also against accused Nos.4 to 11, 13, 14 (the revision petitioner), 15 and 17 for the offences punishable under Section 120B of IPC and under Sections 12 and 14 of the P.C. Act, while allowing discharge plea at the instance of accused Nos.12, 16 and 20. It is also submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that, on reading Sections 263(1) and (2) of BNSS together, the same do not mandate that charge shall be farmed in the presence of the accused, even though, as per Section 263(2), the charge have to be read and explained to the accused. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, in this case, charge framed on 07.04.2025 in the absence of accused No.14 and in the presence of his counsel. Thereafter, the same was read over only on 17.06.2025, on which date fresh vakalath along with discharge petition had been filed. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, before passing order on 07.04.2025, on 18.03.2025, the accused were represented and they were heard on the question of framing charge along with discharge petitions. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.14 further that, even after framing charge, the court is bound to consider the plea of discharge independently. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.14 further that, even after framing charge, the court is bound to consider the plea of discharge independently. This contention also is opposed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. 9. First of all, I shall address the genesis of this case, which led to passing of order dated 07.04.2025. A copy of the same has been forwarded by the learned Special Judge, when a report from him was called for. As per the order dated 07.04.2025, the learned Special Judge considered discharge petitions filed by accused Nos.8, 12, 15, 18 and 20 and also considered the question of framing charge against other accused including accused No.14 (the revision petitioner herein), after hearing the counsel appearing for the other accused including accused No.14. In the detailed order running into 48 pages, the learned Special Judge found that accused Nos.12, 16 and 20 were liable to be discharged. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge framed charge against the other accused, including accused No.14 under various sections. Thus, in this matter, as per the order dated 07.04.2025, much prior before filing of the discharge petition, as on 17.06.2025, along with new vakalath for the petitioner/accused No.14 by Advs. Vijayakumar C.Y. and T.B.Sivaprasad, the court framed charge. Thereafter, only on 17.06.2025 plea of accused No.14 and some other accused was recorded. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, at the time when charge was framed, accused Nos.8, 12 and 20 were present, though others were represented by their counsel. 10. The prime challenge raised by the learned counsel for the accused No.14/revision petitioner is that, framing of charge as on 07.04.2025 in the absence of the accused is illegal. It is interesting to note that, no challenge raised by accused No.14, insofar as the order dated 07.04.2025, whereby the Special Court framed charge against him and others, so far and now the challenge against the said order is barred by limitation. 11. Coming to Section 263 of BNSS, the same reads as under: 263. Framing of charge. It is interesting to note that, no challenge raised by accused No.14, insofar as the order dated 07.04.2025, whereby the Special Court framed charge against him and others, so far and now the challenge against the said order is barred by limitation. 11. Coming to Section 263 of BNSS, the same reads as under: 263. Framing of charge. (1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused within a period of sixty days from the date of first hearing on charge. (2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. 12. On reading Section 263(1) of BNSS, in warrant trial cases, on consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, if the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, for which the Magistrate is competent to try, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused within a period of sixty days from the date of first hearing on charge. 13. Section 263(2) of BNSS provides that, on framing charge, then the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. 14. In the instant case, it is true that as on 07.04.2025, when the charge was framed, the revision petitioner/accused No.14 was not present, though he was duly represented by lawyer of his choice. But, the plea of the accused was recorded in tune with Section 263(2) of BNSS only on 17.06.2025 and it was on this date, the discharge petition was filed. 15. But, the plea of the accused was recorded in tune with Section 263(2) of BNSS only on 17.06.2025 and it was on this date, the discharge petition was filed. 15. As far as the second question raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is concerned, it is the well settled law that, after framing charge, the accused is disentitled to file an application for discharge, since a criminal court has no power to review its order and relegate back to the pre-charge stage, after framing charge. Therefore, the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner found to be unsustainable and is negatived. 16. Coming to Section 263 of BNSS, going by the provision, in nowhere it has been stated that, framing of charge is an event to be held in the presence of the accused, though recording of plea covered under Section 263(2) of BNSS, shall be in the presence of the accused, so that he could either plead guilty or claim trial. 17. Comparing the phraseology used in Section 263(1) of BNSS with that of Section 240(1) of Cr.P.C, the only addition is 'within a period sixty days from the date of first hearing on charge'. Section 263(2) of BNSS and Section 240(2) of Cr.P.C. are similarly worded. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.14, as per Section 251(1) of BNSS, framing of charge in sessions cases is permitted in the virtual presence of the accused. Be it so, atleast virtual presence of the accused is necessary, at the time of framing charge. 18. While addressing this question, it is not exactly correct to say that framing charge under Section 263 of BNSS is in the physical presence of the accused, while the general principle is that presence of the accused to be secured during charge framing. Section 251(2) of the BNSS allows framing of charges in the virtual presence of the accused in sessions trial. The core principle is that, the accused should be informed of the charges against them, and this is typically done in their presence. Section 263 of BNSS outlines the procedure for framing charges, and while the Section emphasizes the importance of informing the accused, it doesn't explicitly mandate physical presence of the accused. Section 251(2) of BNSS, allows framing of charge in the virtual presence of the accused, in sessions trial. Section 263 of BNSS outlines the procedure for framing charges, and while the Section emphasizes the importance of informing the accused, it doesn't explicitly mandate physical presence of the accused. Section 251(2) of BNSS, allows framing of charge in the virtual presence of the accused, in sessions trial. This means that if the accused is represented by legal counsel, the court can proceed with framing the charges even if the accused is not physically present in the court room. The primary purpose of framing charges is to inform the accused of the specific allegations against them so they can prepare their defense. This purpose can still be achieved through virtual means if the accused is properly represented. Minor irregularities in the framing of charges, such as a brief absence of the accused, do not necessarily invalidate the trial unless the same would prejudice the accused's ability to defend themselves, unless in the opinion of the Court, a failure of justice, in fact, has been occurred thereby, as could be seen from Section 465 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 511 of BNSS read with Section 215 of Cr.P.C. and 238 of BNSS. In the instant case, charge was framed by passing a lengthy order, after hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.14 and thus, no prejudice or failure of justice to be found. 19. In fact, either Section 263(1) of BNSS or Section 240(1) of Cr.P.C does not mandate the presence of the accused at the time of framing charge. But, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, he right of the accused to be heard at the time of framing of charge is substantive and could not be bypassed, in the decision reported in [(2010) 7 SCC 578] Shivjee Singh v. Nagendra Tiwary . In fact, the right of the accused to be heard at the time of framing charge could be effectively ensured by hearing the counsel for the accused as well. 21. In the instant case, as I have already pointed out, the learned Special Court framed charge against the revision petitioner/accused No.14 and some other accused, after hearing the respective counsel along with discharge petitions filed by the revision petitioner/accused No.14 and some other accused persons, within the ambit of Section 262 of BNSS. 21. In the instant case, as I have already pointed out, the learned Special Court framed charge against the revision petitioner/accused No.14 and some other accused, after hearing the respective counsel along with discharge petitions filed by the revision petitioner/accused No.14 and some other accused persons, within the ambit of Section 262 of BNSS. Accordingly, on 07.04.2025, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused, including the counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.14, the learned Special Judge dismissed the discharge petitions, filed by some of the accused and framed charge against some of the accused, including the petitioner. 22. As per Section 263(2) of BNSS, charge framed shall then be read and explained to the accused, and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence/offences charged or claims to be tried. In the instant case, the said step was not done on 07.04.2025 as far as the revision petitioner/accused No.14 is concerned, because of his absence and it was done when the accused appeared before the Court. In fact, no challenge raised by the revision petitioner/accused No.14 against the order dated 07.04.2025, which led to framing of charge against him, after hearing his counsel and as already observed, now the challenge against the said order is barred by limitation. The point raised by the learned counsel for revision petitioner/accused No.14 is that, charge framed in the absence of the revision petitioner/accused No.14 is illegal. In view of the discussion herein above, this contention would not succeed. 23. Thus, this petition is liable to fail. Accordingly, this revision petition stands dismissed. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Special Court, forthwith, for information and further steps.