1. By the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29th April, 2016 passed by the Special Judge in case titled as ‘CBI Vs. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. & Ors.’ in RC No. 219/2013/E/0006 directing framing of charge against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 120-B/409/420 IPC and Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the PC Act).

2. When the matter came up before this Court for preliminary hearing on 18th October, 2016 this Court raised a query as to the maintainability of the present petition and arguments were heard on this issue. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 25th July, 2014 in a batch of petitions relating to the Coal block allocations. Relevant paras 9 and 10 of the said order are as under:

“9. All cases pending before different courts in Delhi pertaining to coal block allocation matters shall stand transferred to the court of Special Judge as afore-noted.

10. We also make it clear that any prayer for stay or impeding the progress in the investigation/trial can be made only before this Court and no other Court shall entertain the same.”

3. Contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is three-fold, firstly that the order dated 25th July, 2014 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is an order both under Article 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India and a meaningful interpretation of the same would show that the main concern of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was that there should be no impediment either in the investigation or trial and thus wherever trial or investigation was required to be stayed or hindered, no Court except the Supreme Court will hear the petitions against the order of the Special Judge. He states that the petitioner is neither seeking stay of the operation of the impugned order nor the proceedings before the Trial Court nor asking that the Trial Court Record be called for, which could result in delay of the trial. In the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the emphasis was to strike a balance between speedy trial and procedure established by law and the nature of the remedy sought. In the present case the petitioner is challenging the order directing framing charge and the remedy available therein being substantive in nature besides being constitutional, the intent of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court could never be to take away the substantive right as held by the Constitution Bench decision reported as in A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 6 SCC 602. The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is a Code established by due process of law and the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not intend to abrogate the remedies available to the petitioner. There is a difference between a Court monitored investigation and a Court monitored trial and as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it was only a Court monitored investigation, so the decision in the case of Vineet Narayan & Ors. Vs. UOI & Anr., (1998) 1 SCC 226 squarely applies to the present case. With respect to the speedy trial, the directions of the Supreme Court were specific as it directed appointment of a reputed lawyer as a Special Public Prosecutor and secondly requested the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court to appoint a Judge to try these matters exclusively. Beyond these two aspects the order of the Supreme Court did not interfere with the trial and it cannot be interpreted that no order of the Special Judge can be interfered by the High Court and the petitioner deprived of the due process of law and the constitutional remedies. The right of judicial review is part of basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be taken away. The order of the Supreme Court preserves the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain petitions against the orders passed by the Special Judge. Reference is