AVNISH JAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C), the Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 18 -4 -2000 passed by Special Magistrate (C.B.I.), Dehradun in CBI Case No. 248 of 1999 and order dated 12 -11 -2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 73 of 2000 whereby the revision against order of the Magistrate is dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the First Information Report (copy Annexure -1 to the affidavit) is lodged on 3 -4 -1998 with Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI). The allegations against the Petitioner, Avnish Jain were that he presented a Bank draft for encashment of Rs. 1,13,133/ - introducing himself as J. L Agarwal. The Senior Manager of Central Bank of India, Astley Hall, Dehradun made a report against the Petitioner, Avnish Jain and some other officials of Punjab National Bank in respect of offences punishable under Sections 120B, read with 420, 467, 468, 471 and 511 I.P.C., and relating to offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation, CBI submitted charge sheet (Annexure -2) on 4 -10 -1998. The Magistrate concerned on 19 -11 -1998 sent the charge sheet to the Special Judge, CBI for taking cognizance. However, the Special Judge, CBI on 7 -12 -1998 returned the charge sheet to the court of Magistrate for trial of the accused. The Magistrate instead of proceeding with the trial, vide its order dated 12 -1 -1999 (copy Annexure -6 to the affidavit) returned the charge sheet to CBI for presenting the same before the competent court having jurisdiction. Thereafter, fresh charge sheet dated 17 -9 -1999 (Annexure -7) was filed by CBI again in the same court of Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction in respect of CBI cases at Dehradun. Taking the cognizance on the charge sheet the Magistrate issued summons to the accused (present Petitioner), who raised preliminary objection on 4 -4 -2000 (Annexure -8) challenging the cognizance on the ground that charge sheet has earlier been returned by the same court. After hearing the parties, the Magistrate vide its order dated 18 -4 -2000 (Annexure -9) rejected the objections of the accused. On this, accused Avnish Jain preferred Criminal Revision No. 73 of 2000 before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun. Said court also, after hearing the parties, dismissed the revision vide its order dated 12 -11 -2001 (Annexure -10), hence this petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner could not show any provision of law, under which the CBI was barred from submitting fresh charge sheet in respect of same offence. Had there been discharge of the accused or acquittal of accused on the charge sheet submitted earlier, it could have been considered whether the Magistrate was competent to take cognizance on fresh charge sheet or not, but that is not case here. Rather, while returning the earlier charge sheet the Magistrate himself makes it clear that the charge sheet may be filed before the competent court. As such, in the above circumstances, taking cognizance on the subsequent charge sheet (Annexure -7) cannot be said to be erroneous in law.