An FIR was lodged against Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. ("Appellant") and several officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ("MCD") under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA). The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a chargesheet in November 2002, leading the Special Judge, CBI, to frame charges against the Appellant.
The Appellant challenged the charge-framing order through a Criminal Revision petition in the Delhi High Court. The Learned Single Judge ruled that an interlocutory order, like the charge-framing order, could not be revised under Section 19(3)(c) of the PCA, but also noted conflicting opinions on whether such orders could be challenged under Article 226/227 of the Constitution vide Dharambir Khattar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and R.C. Sabharwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation. While both Dharambir Khattar R. C. Sabharwal judgments categorically state that no revision petition would be maintainable in the High Courts against the order on charge, the subsequent decision in R.C. Sabharwal however, goes on to hold that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 is very wide and can be used to interfere even with an interlocutory order, to meet the ends of justice. this led to the matter being examined by a larger bench.
The Division Bench of the High Court ultimately determined that an order framing charges was indeed an interlocutory order, and thus, no revision petition could be entertained. However, it acknowledged the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227, albeit with caution to avoid undermining Section 19(3)(c) of the PCA.
IssuesThe Supreme Court reviewed the High Court’s decisions and considered the implications of the legislative intent behind Section 19(3)(c) of the PCA. The Court acknowledged the need for a fair and speedy trial, emphasizing the constitutional mandate for expeditious justice under Article 21.
The Court noted that while Section 19(3)(c) of the PCA bars revision petitions against interlocutory orders, it also recognized the broader supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227. The Court stressed that while supervisory jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously, it could not be entirely precluded by legislative provisions.
DecisionThe Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s decision regarding the non-maintainability of revision petitions against interlocutory orders under Section 19(3)(c) of the PCA. However, the Court emphasized the necessity for expeditious trials, holding that if a stay order is granted, the matter should be heard on a day-to-day basis and concluded within two to three months. If the trial is not concluded within six months of the stay, the stay order would automatically be vacated unless extended by a reasoned order demonstrating exceptional circumstances.