The plea bargaining application should be considered in the light of the added offences and the finality of the order dated 6.4.2015.

Om Prakash-VII, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Defective No. 273 of 2015 under Section 397 /401 Cr. P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist Vinod Kumar Agarwal, Suresh Chand Agarwal and O. P. Agarwal against the orders dated 27.4.2015 and 6.4.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, C.B.I., Ghaziabad in Special Case No. 28 of 2005, under Section 420 , 468, 471 IPC and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (C.B.I. Vs. O. P. Agarwal and others), Police Station CBI/SPE/Dehradun. Vide order dated 27.4.2015, the plea bargaining application moved by the revisionist has been rejected by the court below and vide order dated 6.4.2015, the court below has proceeded to frame the additional charge against the revisionist.

2. Brief fact of the case are as follows :

3. Special case no. 28 of 2005, mentioned above, was pending in the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, C.B.I., Ghaziabad against the revisionists. Initially after framing the charges prosecution evidence was being recorded. Few witnesses have been examined by the prosecution/C.B.I. During the trial an application under Section 319 Cr. P.C. was moved. Learned court below after hearing the parties summoned the two accused namely H. S. Vyas and K. S. Bhatti to face the trial. Vide order 6.4.2015 learned court below proceeded to frame charge not only against the newly summoned accused but also decided to add some more offences in the charges framed against the revisionists also. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 20.4.2015 passed in the Criminal Misc. Application (under Section 482 Cr. P.C.) No. 10017 of 2015 Vinod Kumar Agarwal and others Vs. C.B.I., the trial court disposed of the application for plea bargaining on dated 27.4.2015.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the present revision has been preferred.

5. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Advocate who appears for the C.B.I. and gone through the record including the case law cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that order dated 6.4.2015 was passed without affording opportunity to the revisionist. It was further argued that vide order dated 27.4.2015 learned trial court rejected the application of plea bargaining on the ground that revisionists' case comes under the purview of exception clause and application for plea bargaining is not maintainable in the matter. Learned counsel has referred the provision of Section 265(A) and argued that the court dealing with the matter has to see only the paper forwarded under Section 173 Cr. P.C. for disposal of the application for plea bargaining. Newly added section in the charge will not be taken into consideration while disposing of the plea bargaining application. Learned counsel for the revisionists has placed reliance on the following judgments :

1. Criminal Appeal No. 1302 of 2008 Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 20.8.2008.

2. Shiv Nandan (In Jail) Vs. State of U. P. reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 3047.

3. State of Gujrat Vs. Natwar Harchandji Thakor reported in 2005 Law Suit (Guj) 843.

7. Sri Khanna appearing for the C.B.I. has submitted that the revision against the order dated 6.4.2015 is not maintainable as the same was challenged in the Criminal Misc. Application (under Section 482 ) No. 10017 of 2015. The revisionists cannot be permitted to agitate again the order dated 6.4.2015 taking recourse to Section 397 /401 Cr. P.C. It was further stated that while passing order on the application for plea bargaining, learned court below has given opportunity of hearing to the parties. Thus finding the case of the revisionists covered under the exceptional clause rejected the same, therefore, no illegality or impropriety has been caused by the learned court below.

8. Sri Chandra Shekhar and Sri Pankaj Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists also submitted that