Revisional Jurisdiction Is Not Meant To Test The Waters Of What Might Happen In The Trial: Delhi High Court

The observation came from Justice Chandra Dhari Singh who also said that the revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below:

"The revisional jurisdiction is not meant to test the waters of what might happen in the trial. The Revisional Court has to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of the court below. While doing so, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case, rather it considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence. In the instant case, the Petitioner has failed to make out a case for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction since there is no patent error in the impugned order on the face of record." court said

The revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking setting aside of an order for quashing criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner was booked under Section 420 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Petitioner V.K. Verma was the then DG, Organizing Committee (OC), Commonwealth Games, 2010 and other officers of the OC entered into a criminal conspiracy with Suresh Kumar Seenghal, Director of M/s. Premier Brands Pvt. Ltd. (PBPL), with Chairman, M/s. Compact Disc India Ltd. and others. The OC officers scrapped the process of initial Request for Proposal (RFP) on flimsy grounds after receipt of the proposal of PBPL, to extend undue favour to PBPL by appointing the said company as Official Master Licensee for Merchandising and Online and Retail Concessionaire for Commonwealth Games, 2010 (CWG) against a minimum royalty amount of Rs. 7.05 crores. PBPL, however, after earning a huge amount from the CWG band properties did not pay anything to the OC and the cheque amounting Rs. 3.525 Crores were dishonoured by the Bank on instructions from PBPL, which caused pecuniary advantage to Suresh Kumar Seenghal and PBPL and corresponding loss to the Govt. Exchequer.

A charge sheet was filed on under Section 120B read with 420 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 upon which the Trial Court took cognizance and ordered charge under Section 228 of Code against the petitioners and all other accused persons under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 420 of IPC after the final report.

This is the order that has been challenged before Delhi High Court on the grounds of patent defects and errors of jurisdiction.

Petitioner argued that Special Judge has failed to appreciate the arguments advanced by the accused during the impugned proceedings. That the perusal of entire evidence, even if taken on face value, does not make out any case as is being alleged by the Prosecution against the Petitioner.

"The impugned order erroneously records that in a meeting held in the afternoon of 24th February 2010, the petitioner raised objection to the 1st RFP which led to its annulment and paved the way for issuance of fresh tender (the 2nd RFP) making it possible for accused company (PBPL) to participate in the L&M program of Organising Committee. The impugned order erroneously records that the 2^nd RFP was only for the left-out items from the 1st RFP and that the 1^st RFP was at the last stage of formalization." He said.

He further submitted that the impugned Order, without any basis, holds that the petitioner met with the Accused No.-7 Chairman, PBPL on 19th January 2010 and thereafter the decision to issue the fresh tender was taken.

He argued that the impugned Order on Charge, prime facie is arbitrary, illegal and patently flawed and the main ingredients for invoking Section 420 and 120 B of IPC read with Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the PC Act are not even made out. Further he claimed that Special Judge, CBI has failed to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused no. 1, being the Petitioner herein, causing gross and manifest prejudice to the Petitioner and thereby resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. Impugned order on charge is without application of mind to the facts and circumstance. 

Further he argued that It was, the Special Judge had failed to examine the prayer for discharge of the Petitioner made in his written submission in reply to the chargesheet filed by the CBI and has framed charges against him.

Counsel for CBI submitted that the present petition is not maintainable as the order of framing charge is an interlocutory order within the ambit of Section 19 (3)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and thus, non-revisable under Section 397 (2) read with Section 482 of the Code.

He submitted that the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy and caused wrongful losses to the government exchequer. The petitioner along with other accused abused their official position in order to cause pecuniary advantage to Suresh Kumar Seengal and M/s PBPL. The cheques issued by PBPL were dishonoured on presentation before the bank at their request.

"The petitioner had got 1st RPF cancelled, when the 1st RFP had attained finality, on false grounds and at the last stage the first RFP was revoked. Petitioner could not provide any sufficient reason for such cancelling as the process was initiated through him and he did not note any such objection in the beginning. Furthermore, final approval for advertisement and further course of action to be taken, was also given by the accused," it was argued by counsel for CBI.

It was further argued that Special Judge after considering the evidence in totality passed the order framing charge dated 24th July 2017 against the Petitioner and other co-accused persons under Section 120-B and Section 420 of IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The observations made by Ld. Special Judge has been on the basis of evidence and material on record.

Lastly, it was submitted that the present petition has been filed with a mala fide intention to delay the proceedings and hence be dismissed as being devoid of merits.

The Court while dealing with the question of maintainability observed that the order of framing charge or that of discharge is neither interlocutory nor final and hence, does not attract the bar of Section 397 (2) of the Code. The High Court is thus competent to entertain a revision petition against such orders.

Coming to framing of charges, the Court observed that framing of charges has to merely see whether the commission of offense can be a possibility from the evidence on record or not.

"It is also required to be noted that the charge does not render a conclusive finding with respect to guilt or innocence of the accused. The charge is merely an indication to the accused about the offense for which he is being tried for," the Court said.

Coming to the Scope of revisional jurisdiction the Court opined that it is well settled that under the provisions of Section 397/401 of Code, the Revisional Court has to only consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court.

About the jurisdiction of High Court undersection 482 of CrPC, the court said as per settled position of law the jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rarest of the rare cases, only to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.

"The beauty of procedural law lies in the stages and remedies available during the course of a criminal proceeding. The procedure ought to be followed and framing of charge is an important step in that process where the trial court peruses the record for want of a prima facie probability of the accused having committed the offence as alleged. Framing of charge does not mean that the accused is guilty, it only implies the accused may be guilty. The minute scrutiny of evidence is a matter of trial."

At the end, the court did not find any merit in the submission made by the petitioner and said he has utterly failed to point out what is causing grave miscarriage of justice in the impugned order.:

"By the instant petition, rather than pointing out patent irregularities, the petitioner is asking the revisional court to critically examine and analyse the evidence on record which is a matter of trial and cannot be examined at this stage. The petitioner has been unable to satisfy why this court should use its revisionary jurisdiction and quash the charges framed against the petitioner."

In view of the above, the court declined to exercise the revision jurisdiction. And disposed of the petition.

Case Title: V K VERMA v. CBI

2022 LiveLaw (Del) 388

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment