A S PURI Vs. STATE CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9th September, 1992, whereby the learned Judge has framed a charge under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for an offence committed under Section 165 IPC.

(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that a charge under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not have been framed in view of Section 31 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which specifically repeals Section 165 IPC and brings into play Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. In other words, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act permits the continuation of investigation, legal proceeding or remedy as may be instituted continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment as may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed. Consequently, the charge under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could not have been framed. He also draws my attention to Section 189 of the Cr.P.C. and submits that a large number of statements and documents that have been procured are statements made before a Sergent of the police in U.K. cannot be made use of as material for prosecution unless provisions of Section 189 Cr.P.C. have been complied with.

(3.) Counsel for the CBI on the other hand contends that it is proper and advisable that this court does not take upon itself the framing of charge and/or going into material to satisfy itself whether the provisions of Section 189 of the Cr.P.C. have been complied with but leave it to the trial court to reconsider the matter in view of the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.