RAMLAL JAGNE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter is listed for hearing on admission. With the consent of Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the revision is heard finally.

(2.) The revision has been preferred against the order dated 2.2.2018 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act of 1988'), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.266 of 2016, whereby the Learned Special Judge has rejected the application filed by the Applicant for grant of an adjournment and has framed charges against him under Sections 13(1)(e), 13(2) of the Act of 1988.

(3.) Shri Kanak Tiwari, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the Applicant had been working as a Forest Range Officer. He subsequently retired from the post on 31.5.2016. Prior to that, on 24.3.2009, First Information Report for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e), 13(2) of the Act of 1988 was registered against the Applicant. The Applicant was not satisfied with the way the investigation was being carried out by the Respondent/authorities who did not take into consideration several documents which the Applicant offered to file in support of his defence. Therefore, he preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition (Cr) No.96 of 2015 before this Court. Vide order dated 18.6.2015, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Respondent authorities to consider the documents filed by the Applicant related to his income tax return and the return filed by his family members, before filing challan in accordance with law. It was further directed that the investigating agency would further be at liberty to consider all the relevant documents produced by the parties. Shri Tiwari further submits that though charge-sheet was filed on 9.11.2016, it had already been prepared on 27.4.2015 and the charge-sheet was filed on 9.11.2016 as it was prepared on 27.4.2015 ignoring the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 18.6.2015. The Applicant was arrested on 10.1.2018 and since then he is in custody. On 2.2.2018, Counsel for the Applicant submitted an application before the Trial Court for grant of an adjournment before considering for framing of charge on various grounds as well as on the ground that the important and complex facts of the case are in the knowledge of the Senior Advocate who was busy in an another case in the High Court of Chhattisgarh, but the Trial Court rejected the application and framed the charges. Shri Tiwari further submits that the Applicant is in custody since 10.1.2018. He was served with a copy of the charge-sheet on 10.1.2018 itself. The charge-sheet runs in 1200 pages. The Counsel appearing for the Applicant before the Trial Court did not get sufficient and proper time to study the charge-sheet and prepare the case for arguments. Shri Tiwari further submits that the Trial Court has failed to consider that the prosecution has failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition (Cr) No.96 of 2015 and the details of the properties of the family members of the Applicant and their income tax returns have not been given any consideration.