Judgment in Crl. Revision Petition No. 02/2011

A significant ruling has been made by the Supreme Court of India in the criminal revision petition case numbered 02/2011. The judgment addresses key issues raised during the trial and provides crucial guidance on legal procedures. Stay tuned for detailed insights into this important legal decision.


  • The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a criminal appeal against the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi.
  • The appeal was regarding a case under FCRA, 1976 where a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Punjab received foreign contributions from various entities.
  • The MLA claimed that the funds received were gifts from his father and were held on behalf of his father by the foreign entities.
  • Cognizance was taken under Section 35 of FCRA, 2010, and summons were issued to the MLA.
  • The High Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings, mentioning insufficient evidence to frame charges and allowing compounding of the case.
  • The Income Tax Authorities also accepted the funds as gifts in their proceedings.
  • Letters Rogatory were issued for evidence collection from the UK, and the FCRA, 1976 was repealed and replaced by FCRA, 2010.
  • The MLA sought compounding of the offence under Section 41 of FCRA, 2010 as the offence became compoundable after the Act came into force.
  • The rejection of the compounding application by the Ministry of Home Affairs was challenged and a fresh hearing was directed.
  • The benefit of Section 41 of FCRA, 2010 was deemed not available to the MLA for offences committed under the previous Act.
  • The High Court observed paragraphs 60-62 in the impugned order.
  • Paragraph 60 of the order states…
  • Paragraph 61 discusses…
  • Paragraph 62 concludes…

Also Read: State of West Bengal vs. Respondents: Abetment of Suicide Case


  • Learned senior counsel Sri Mahesh Jethmalani supported his argument by citing the judgment of this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Manilal Gordhandas and Ors.
  • Revisional Authority was found to have passed the order without giving notice and opportunity, as per the arguments made.
  • The impugned order passed by the High Court was deemed not sustainable after considering the submissions of both senior counsels.
  • In the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court made findings on various disputed facts and ultimately allowed the petition.

Also Read: Partnership Dissolution Case: Legal Heirs’ Rights Upheld


  • The defence of the accused is that he received funds from his father, Mr. Vipin Khanna.
  • The High Court made observations based on statements made by Mr. Vipin Khanna and entities like ‘New Heaven Nominees’.
  • The correctness of the defence that funds were received from the father is a factual dispute.
  • The burden of proof is on the accused to show he received funds from his father.
  • The High Court overstepped its authority by delving into the details of the allegations and defences.
  • The High Court erroneously assessed the case after cognizance was taken by the Competent Court.
  • The assessment of the defence should only occur during trial and not prematurely.
  • The High Court’s findings regarding the funds being gifts from the father were deemed incorrect.
  • The prosecution neither disputed nor alleged that the funds did not belong to the father of the accused.
  • Sessions Court’s refusal to issue summons when no prima facie case is made out
  • Revisional Court’s duty in challenging the Sessions Court’s order
  • Importance of Revisional Court’s consideration in such cases

Also Read: Land Procurement Contract Dispute: Supreme Court Overturns High Court Decision


  • The order dated 20.08.2011 in Crl. Revision Petition No.02/2011 is quashed.
  • The matter is remitted to the Revisional Court for fresh consideration after issuing notice to the respondent.
  • The respondent must appear before the Revisional Court within four weeks.
  • The Revisional Court must decide the matter in accordance with the law and provide an opportunity for hearing.
  • If an adverse order is passed without notice to the respondent, the High Court can set it aside and remit the matter for fresh consideration.
  • The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order dated 30.11.2015 is set aside.
  • The trial court can proceed from the stage where the proceedings were stopped.
  • The Revisional Court can then fix a date for hearing and pass an appropriate order based on its own merits.


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001572-001572 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *