UDAYAKUMAR Vs. SUPERIENTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these Crl. R. Ps. are directed against a common order passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, dismissing as many as 28 Crl. M. P. filed by some of the accused in C. Cs 11/92 to 22/92 pending before that Court. The common petitioner in all these Crl. R. Ps. is 2nd accused in C. C. 12/1992,20/1992, 21/1992 & 22/1992,3rd accused in c. C. 16/1992,18/1992 and 19/1992. 4th accused in 11/1992,14/1992 and 17/1992. 5th accused in C. C. 13/1992 and 6th accused in 15/1992.

(2.) THE petitioner along with other accused are chargesheeted by the respondent alleging that they committed the offences punishable under S. 5 (2) read with 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 109 and 120b of the Indian Penal Code. Charges in the above said cases were framed in the year 1989 and trials are not yet over.

(3.) IT is true that in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 there was no provision corresponding to sub-s. (3) and (4) S. 19 of the P. C. Act, 1980. But in Satya Narayana Sharma's case (supra) the Supreme Court has not made any distinction between the cases arising under the 1947 Act and 1988 act. In para 17 of the decision, it is stated that "thus in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, there can be no stay of trials".