POLICE INSPECTOR Vs. C.V. SHEELAVANTH, DRUG INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed this revision petition under Section 397(1) r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the correctness and legality of the finding in discharging the respondent accused by the III Addl. District Judge and Special Judge at Mysore in Spl. Case No. 90/1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) ASSAILING the order of discharge passed by the special Judge, the state has come up with this revision mainly on the ground, that the finding recorded by the Special Judge holding that the sanction order i.e., Ex -P.25 is not valid and incorrect and totally wrong. So also, the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court for coming to that conclusion are quite illegal, erroneous and against the Mandatory provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. So, after framing the charge the prosecution adduced the evidence to substantiate the said charge and the respondent, accused has examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked 40 documents. But the special Judge without considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record disposed of the case only on one point i.e., the sanction order Ex.P.25 issued by the sanctioning authority is without application of mind, without considering the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/ - for releasing the boxes of X -ray dyes seized by him as alleged. Hence, this revision.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments, the learned Government Advocate for the revision petitioner -state submitted that the Trial court has recorded evidence of prosecution witnesses and also recorded that the statement of the respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the arguments of the parties. So, without considering the material evidence placed on record by the revision petitioner -Prosecution discharged the respondent -accused on the point of sanction order to prosecute the respondent, which is illegal and incorrect. When once the charge has been framed and the evidence is adduced and the accused has entered into his defence, the Special Judge ought to have been considered the evidence placed on record and record its finding. So, in the instant case, the trial court neither discussed the evidence nor considered the same. It is argued by the learned High Court Govt. Advocate that the conclusion arrived at by the trial court in discharging the respondent -accused is illegal and incorrect is liable to be quashed. The judgment and the order of discharge passed by the trial Court and the finding is not based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is further submitted that once the charge is framed and the evidence is adduced and the accused has entered in his defence, at that stage, the question of discharge does not arise. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of discharge is liable to be quashed as it is illegal.