Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtDivision BenchAppeals disposed of.

Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case / Petition Number:Criminal Appeal Nos. 1375-1376 of 2013
Neutral Citation:[2018] 2 SCR 1106

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Adarsh Kumar Goel
  • R. F. Nariman
Judgment Date
2018-04-25
Court Decision / Holding
The appeals are disposed of.
Final Disposition
Appeals disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd.
  • Anr.

Respondents

  • Central Bureau of Investigation

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court order concerns Criminal Appeal Nos. 1375-1376 of 2013 filed by Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. against the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Court, comprising Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and R. F. Nariman, refers to a prior three-judge bench decision dated 28 March 2018 reported in [2018] 2 SCR 1045, and after examining the material on record, holds that there is no ground to interfere with the trial court’s order framing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequently, the trial court is directed to proceed with the matter, with all contentions left open for consideration during the trial. The Court provides practical directives on the handling of original trial records: where appellate or revisional courts summon original records, photocopies or scanned copies may be retained for reference and originals returned to trial courts promptly; if original records are strictly required, the appellate/revisional court may summon for perusal and return the originals with photocopies. The order also directs that a copy be sent to all High Courts and that the appeals are disposed of with appearances before the trial court on 14 May 2018. Overall, the decision emphasizes efficiency in trial proceedings while preserving avenues for future challenge.

Provisions of Law Cited

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.19(3)(c)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

/** not stated in text **/

Contentions of Respondents

/** not stated in text **/

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
[2018] 2 SCR 1045PositiveCited as controlling authority for the issue of interference with charge framing; the present order follows the ruling of the three-judge bench dated 28 March 2018.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2018] 2 S.C.R. 1106 [2018] 2 S.C.R. ## A ASIAN 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) – Jurisdiction of High Court in granting stay in challenge against order framing charge under the 1988 Act – Held: In view of judgment of three_ C _Judge Bench dtd. 28[th] March, 2018 reported in_ [2018] 2 SCR 1045, _and after considering the material on record, no ground to interfere with the order framing charge – Trial Court to proceed with the matter pending before it._ _Practice and Procedure – Summoning of records by appellate/_ D _revisional court– Held: Wherever original record has been summoned by appellate/revisional court, photocopy/scanned copy of the same may be kept for its reference and original returned to the trial courts forthwith – If in future the trial court record is summoned, the trial courts may send photocopy/scanned copy of_ E _the record and retain the original so that the proceedings are not held up – In cases where specifically original record is required by holding that photocopy will not serve the purpose, the appellate/ revisional court may call for the record only for perusal and the same be returned while keeping a photocopy/scanned copy of the same._ ## F CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 1375-1376 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2011 and 07.04.2011 of 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 Singh Bedi, Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Advs. for the appearing parties. H 1106 ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY P. LTD. AND ANR. 1107 v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION The following Order of the Court was delivered: A ## **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 any B ground to interfere with the order framing charge. 3. Accordingly, the trial court is directed to proceed with the matter pending before it. All contentions of the parties are left open which may be gone into by the trial court. Parties are directed to appear before the trial 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 has been summoned by an appellate/revisional court, photocopy/scanned copy of the same may be kept for its reference and original returned to the trial 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 and retain the original so that the proceedings are not held up. In cases where specifically original record is required by holding that photocopy will not serve the purpose, the appellate/revisional court may call for the record only for perusal and the same be returned while keeping a photocopy/scanned copy of the same. C D E 6. A copy of this order be sent to all the High Courts. The appeals are disposed of. F Divya Pandey Appeals disposed of. G H