SIDDARTH VERMA Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing order dated 6th January, 2006 of the learned Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi, whereby an application of the petitioner for his discharge from the case was dismissed by the learned Special Judge.

(2.) THE petitioners father and petitioner were arrayed as accused persons in this case by CBI. THE petitioners father was arrayed as accused for possessing disproportionate assets and was charged by the trial court under Section 13(1) (e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the petitioner was charged under Section 109 of IPC read with Section 13(2) and 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act. During the pendency of proceedings, father of the petitioner expired on 8th August, 2005. Thus, criminal proceeding against him got abated. THE petitioner then moved an application for his discharge on the ground that he could not be prosecuted under Prevention of Corruption Act in view of the fact that the public servant charged under Prevention of Corruption Act (his father) had already died. THE petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Kartongen Kemi Ochforvaltning AB Vs State through AB, 2004 (1) JCC 218.

(3.) I consider that learned Special Judge rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner for discharge. Charges were framed against two accused persons, against one for substantive offence and against other for abetment. If the main accused has died, that does not mean that substantive offence stands wiped out. The offence committed by the deceased, accused of amassing wealth through corrupt means, does not stand wiped out and the wealth still stands there in the hands of LR of the deceased/accused and the role of the petitioner of acting as a conduit for amassing wealth for his father can be proved by CBI during trial. I, therefore, find no force in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.