Insofar as the application filed by accused No.
Through the said order the High Court has Page 1 of 15 allowed the Criminal Revision Application No.
Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal was registered as Exhibit 20.
1 was dismissed.
RC 49 A /2007CRIACEMumbai.
Since both the Criminal Revision Applications were arising out of the same proceedings before the Special Court, in Special Case No.
2 and further the Criminal Revision Application No.
The accused No.
In the said proceedings both the accused filed separate applications seeking their discharge.
1 had filed the Criminal Revision Application No.
1 Shri Virendra Kumar Agarwal was registered as Exhibit 13 while that of accused No.
It is in that light the appellant herein CBI has instituted these appeals assailing the said companymon order dated 14.12.2015.
1 Shri Virendra Kumar Agarwal through the order dated 15.01.2013 and discharged him from the offences charged against him under FIR No.
2 Smt.
2 was allowed while the Revision Application of the appellant herein assailing the discharge of accused No.
323/2013 filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.
Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal the Special Court through the order dated 22.02.2013 had rejected the application.
1 respectively and are proceeded against in CBI, ACB Special Case No.
Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal claiming to be aggrieved by the rejection of her application for discharge had filed the Criminal Revision Application No.
21/2010.
Heard Shri K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General, for the appellant and Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, for the private respondents as also Shri Nishant Katneshwarkar, learned standing companynsel for the State of Maharashtra and perused the appeal papers.
284/2013 before the High Court.
2 Smt.
The brief facts limited to the disposal of these appeals is that the first respondent in both these appeals, namely, Smt.
The Special Court on Page 2 of 15 companysideration of the application for discharge has allowed the application of accused No.
In that background the appellant herein CBI claiming to be aggrieved by the discharge of accused No.
284/2013 and discharged the accused No.
284/2013 and 161539 IST Reason 323/2013.
323/2013 before the High Court.
They are charged as accused No.
2, Smt.
21/2010, the High Court had clubbed and companysidered the same and disposed of through the companymon order dated Page 3 of 15 14.12.2015 by which the Revision Application of the accused No.
S. Bopanna,J. Delay companydoned.
The application of accused No.
2 and accused No.
Leave granted.
The appellant Central Bureau of Investigation CBI is before this Court assailing the order dated 14.12.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date 2019.09.27 Criminal Revision Application Nos.
