Supreme Court of India
ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY P. LTD. AND ANR. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION on 25 April 2018
1106
[2018] 2 S.C.R.
AASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY P. LTD. AND ANR.
v.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1375-1376 of 2013)
B
APRIL 25, 2018
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.19(3)(c) – Jurisdictionof High Court in granting stay in challenge against order framingcharge under the 1988 Act – Held: In view of judgment of threeCJudge Bench dtd. 28[th] March, 2018 reported in [2018] 2 SCR 1045,and after considering the material on record, no ground to interferewith the order framing charge – Trial Court to proceed with thematter pending before it.
Practice and Procedure – Summoning of records by appellate/Drevisional court– Held: Wherever original record has beensummoned by appellate/revisional court, photocopy/scanned copyof the same may be kept for its reference and original returned tothe trial courts forthwith – If in future the trial court record issummoned, the trial courts may send photocopy/scanned copy ofEthe record and retain the original so that the proceedings arenot held up – In cases where specifically original record is requiredby holding that photocopy will not serve the purpose, the appellate/revisional court may call for the record only for perusal and thesame be returned while keeping a photocopy/scanned copy of thesame.F
D
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNos. 1375-1376 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2011 and 07.04.2011of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. W. P. No. 352 of 2010.
G
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Advs., Ms. Tatini Basu, S. S.Shamshery, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Ms. Rukmini Bobde, Ms. Binu Tamta,V. V. Pattabhi Ram, Sumit Teterwal, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms. B.V. Balaram Das, Ashok K. Mahajan, Senthil Jagadeesan, Amarjit SinghBedi, Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Advs. for the appearing parties.
H
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In view of judgment of three Judge Bench dated 28[th] March,2018 and after considering the material on record, we do not find anyground to interfere with the order framing charge.
3. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to proceed with the matterpending before it. All contentions of the parties are left open which maybe gone into by the trial court. Parties are directed to appear before thetrial court on 14[th] May, 2018.
4. To give effect to directions in judgment of this Court dated 28[th]March, 2018, noted above, we direct that wherever original record hasbeen summoned by an appellate/revisional court, photocopy/scanned copyof the same may be kept for its reference and original returned to thetrial courts forthwith.
5. We also direct that if in future the trial court record is summoned,the trial courts may send photocopy/scanned copy of the record andretain the original so that the proceedings are not held up. In caseswhere specifically original record is required by holding that photocopywill not serve the purpose, the appellate/revisional court may call for therecord only for perusal and the same be returned while keeping aphotocopy/scanned copy of the same.
6. A copy of this order be sent to all the High Courts.
The appeals are disposed of.
Divya Pandey Appeals disposed of.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H