STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court summarily dismissing the application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code'). Respondent faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). The allegation was that the respondent-accused demanded Rs.1500/- by way of illegal gratification for recording mutation on the basis of purchase made by the complainant by a registered sale-deed. On conclusions of Trial Court in Sessions Case No.49 of 1996, learned Special Judge, Jagadhri, held that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act, but has failed to prove offence punishable under Section 13 of the Act. Appellant moved the High Court in terms of Section 378(3) of the Code questioning correctness of the conclusions in the judgment of the Trial Court that the prosecution failed to prove offence punishable under Section 13 of the Act. As noted above, the High Court summarily dismissed the application by observing as follows : "Leave to appeal declined."

(2.) THOUGH various points were urged in support of the appeal, primarily it was contended that the manner of disposal of the application under Section 378(3) of the Code is indefensible.

(3.) SECTION 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. deals with the power of the High Court to grant leave in case of acquittal. Section 378(1) and (3) of the Cr.P.C. as it stood then, read as follows :