VIRENDER SINGH Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Virender Singh and his son Naveen Kumar have filed the present writ petitions impugning the order dated 13th December, 2007 passed by the Special Judge, CBI directing that charges be framed against both of them under Section 120B/419/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC, for short) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as PC Act,1988, for short). Substantive charges have also been directed to be framed against the Petitioner-Virender Singh under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 and against Naveen Kumar under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 419/467/471 IPC.

(2.) The allegation against the Petitioner-Virender Singh in the charge sheet is that during the check period 1st July, 1982 to 12th May, 2000 he had acquired and was found to be in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of 2,62,68,298/. The charge sheet sets out the career profile of Virender Singh, who was inducted and joined Indian Administrative Services (IAS) in July, 1969. The charge sheet sets out details of the income earned by Virender Singh, his wife Geeta Singh, his son Naveen Kumar as well as the assets owned by them to arrive at the said conclusion/finding. It is alleged in the charge sheet that Naveen Kumar had actively participated and abetted Virender Singh in acquisition of assets, which were found disproportionate to the known sources of income. Specific instances have been discussed later on.

(3.) In brief, it is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that the PC Act, 1988 came into force with effect from 9th September, 1988 and consequent there to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (PC Act, 1947 for short) was repealed. Accordingly the check period between July, 1982 to 12th May, 2000 partly includes period prior to enforcement of the PC Act, 1988 with effect from 9th September, 1988 during the period when the PC Act, 1947 was in force. It was submitted that for the period prior to 9th September, 1988, provisions of Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 read with Explanation cannot be applied as it would amount to violation of the constitutional right under Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed upon Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2002 9 SCC 639. It was argued that PC Act, 1988 should not be given retrospective effect as the Explanation to Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1988 has brought about and creates a new offence which is not similar or the same offence as was defined and covered by Section 5(1)(e) of the PC Act, 1947.