SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY,J. - (1.) Revisionist has approached this Court under section 397 Cr.P.C, assailing the order dated 8.1.2013 passed by learned Trial court in the discharge application filed by the revisionist under section 339 Cr.P.C The revisionist further assailed the order dated 31.1.2013 (amended with permission of this Court vide order dated 16.4.2013) whereby the charges under section 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC have been framed against the Revisionist.
(2.) This Court has passed the following order on 29.4.2013. "Counter affidavit filed on behalf of complainant is taken on record. List on 20.5.2013. Meanwhile, Rejoinder affidavit may be filed by the revisionist. State may also file counter affidavit if it so likes by the next date. Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that in the charge no.1 framed by the Trial Court, neither the gross sum of amount allegedly misappropriated by the revisionist is disclosed nor the dates on which such misappropriation was made has been mentioned and there has been a total non-compliance of provisions of 212 (2) Cr.P.C Till the next date of listing, further proceedings in Crl. case no.7646 of 2011 (State vs. Rakesh Deepak Shukla) under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 P.S. Sector 58 District Gautam Budh Nagar pending in the Court of C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar shall remain stayed."
(3.) The point for consideration in the present revision petition is that whether in the present case, the charge framed under section 406 against the revisionist has complied with the particulars as to time, place and person as prescribed in section 212 (2) Cr.P.C and in case said charge is bereft of such particulars, whether such error or omission is material so much as the accused has been misled by such error or omission which has occasioned a failure of justice as mentioned in section 215 Cr.P.C?;