Framing of charges can occur in the absence of the accused, provided proper legal representation is present, ensuring no violation of the accused's rights.

ORDER :

A. Badharudeen, J.

This criminal revision petition has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred as 'BNSS' for short] by the revision petitioner, who is accused No.14 in C.C. No.23/2016 on the files of the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, assailing the order dated 17.06.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.151/2025 in the above case, whereby the discharge plea at the instance of the revision petitioner was dismissed by the learned Special Judge.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), in detail. Perused the order impugned and the decision placed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

3. Parties in this criminal revision petition shall be referred as ‘accused No.14/revision petitioner’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.

4. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, there existed organized collection of money by travel agents from passengers, especially those from weaker sections of society, on the pretext of facilitating their emigration clearance. A share of this money was being paid to public servants for facilitating smooth emigration clearance. The extra amount collected by the travel agents helped the unauthorized passengers to travel illegally and also the genuine passengers to travel with ordeals of emigration check. The Immigration Officers at the counter (Counter Officers) had wide discretionary powers to raise objection to travel of even a genuine passenger. On the other hand, the counter officers could illegally clear passengers with forged passports and Emigration Clearance Required category passengers on job visa without the clearance of Protector of Emigrants (PoE). The scope of detection of irregularities in travel documents is only at the emigration check point. The counter officers are duty bound to check the illegal travel. The 1^st accused is a Civil Police O and was working at the emigration wing of CIAL from 03.06.2003 to 15.12.2003 and 13.12.2007 to 05.07.2011.

The 18th accused is a Civil Police officer and the 17th, 19th and 21^st accused are Armed Police Sub Inspectors. A1, A17, A18, A19 & A21 were functioning as Counter Officers at CIAL during different periods. The 2nd accused is the father of the 1^st accused. The accused Nos.3 to 16 & 20 are proprietors, private firms or representatives of different travel agencies and were engaged in the business of servicing of travel documents of emigrant workers proceeding to middle east countries. There were separate conspiracies between the above public servants, travel agents and passengers. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 11, 12, 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as 'P.C. Act' for short] and under Section 24 of the Emigration Act, by the accused.

5. While challenging the order dismissing the discharge plea at the instance of the revision petitioner/accused No.14, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that, the learned Special Judge dismissed the discharge petition merely on the ground that, charge against the 14^th accused was framed before filing the petition. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, even though charge was framed as on 07.04.2025, the same was in the absence of the revision petitioner/accused No.14 and as per Section 263(2) of the BNSS, the charge shall be read and e