R K Srivastava vs State Through Cbi
2015 Latest Caselaw 3668 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                 RESERVED ON : 16th April, 2015
                                 DECIDED ON : 06th May, 2015

+      CRL.REV.P. 672/2014

       R K SRIVASTAVA                                    ..... Petitioner
                    Through :           Mr.A.K.Vali, Advocate with
                                        Mr.Ramesh N.Keshwani,
                                        Advocate.

                           versus

       STATE THROUGH CBI                                  ..... Respondent
                   Through :            Mr.R.V.Sinha, Standing Counsel
                                        with Mr.A.S.Singh, Advocate.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Present revision petition has been preferred to challenge the

legality and correctness of an order dated 21.10.2014 of learned Spl.Judge

CBI (PC Act)/East by which application dated 21.02.2014 filed under

Section 265 B Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Trial

Court did not appreciate the contents of charge-sheet where there were no

specific allegations against the petitioner to have committed any offence

punishable under Sections 467/468/471 IPC. The petitioner was charged

only with the aid of Section 120-B IPC. The petitioner was not attributed

commission of any act in the charge-sheet which could attract any offence

punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. Provisions of

plea-bargaining are applicable even to offences which prescribe minimum

sentence for any proved offences.

3. Apparently, the petitioner besides others has been sent for

trial by CBI for committing various offences. Charge-sheet has been filed

for the offence under Section 120B read with Section 420/467/468/471

IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of P.C.Act. Cognizance

has already been taken by the Trial Court. It is significant to note that the

petitioner and other accused persons have been charged for committing

various offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC; 120 B

IPC and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of P.C.Act by an order

dated 06.06.2013. The accused persons have pleaded not guilty to the

charges. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses so far.

4. On 21.02.2014 an application under Section 265B Cr.P.C. for

seeking 'plea-bargaining' was moved by the petitioner. The impugned

order dismissing the application being not-maintainable under law cannot

be faulted as the provisions of Chapter XXI-A can be invoked by the

accused among others, where in police case charge-sheet/completion

report has been filed against the accused that an offence, other than an

offence for which the punishment of death or of imprisonment for life or

of imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years has been provided

under the law for the time being in force appears to have been committed

by such an accused.

5. In the instant case, the petitioner has been charge-sheeted

under Section 120B read with Section 420/467/468/471 IPC and Section

13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of P.C.Act. Not only that, a specific

charge has been framed against him by an order dated 06.06.2013. The

petitioner did not opt to challenge the order on charge. The prosecution

has examined nine witnesses so far to prove the charges. The matter is

still pending before the Trial Court for recording statements of remaining

witnesses of the prosecution. At this stage, evidence led or to be adduced

at latter stage cannot be appreciated to prejudge the commission of exact

offence. Since the offences for which the petitioner has been charged

attract more than seven years imprisonment, the provisions of Chapter

XXI-A Cr.P.C. are not applicable.

6. I am in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioner that Section 265-A does not bar seeking plea-bargaining

in cases where minimum sentence is prescribed. Clause (c) Section 265 E

reads as under:

"After hearing the parties under clause (b), if the Court finds that minimum punishment has been provided under the law for the offence committed by the accused, it may sentence the accused to half of such minimum punishment."

7. Plain reading of this provision allows the provisions of plea-

bargaining to be applicable in cases where minimum punishment has been

prescribed under the law. However, in that eventuality, the accused

resorting to plea-bargaining would be liable to get half of such minimum

sentence and possibly cannot ask for lesser punishment.

8. In the light of the above discussion, I find no merit in the

revision petition and it is dismissed. Trial Court record (if any) along with

a copy of this order be sent back forthwith.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MAY 06, 2015 sa