A VISWANATHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in S.C.No.4 of 2001 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate(Special Judge) Cuddalore, who is also the accused in S.C.No.5 of 2001 on the file of the same learned Judge, filed an application under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. and also under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, to discharge him from the charges levelled against him.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner/accused in an earlier case in S.C.No.3 of 1999, he was charged for an offence under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988(hereinafter referred to as "Act") on the ground that he had amassed wealth of Rs.14,86,461/- which is disproportionate to his own income for the period from 1.1.1990 to 31.8.1996. ACCORDING to the petitioner/accused in S.C.No.4 of 2001, he has once again been charged under Section 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the said Act on the ground that he has received a sum of Rs.24,350/- by way of illegal gratification to sanction the electricity connection to fifteen persons for the period from 28.7.1993 to 15.6.1996. ACCORDING to the petitioner/accused he has already been convicted in S.C.No.3 of 1999 for the charges levelled against him.

(3.) EVEN the petitioner has mentioned in Crl.M.P.No.601 of 2003 in S.C.No.4 of 2001 that he has filed an application under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. as well as under Article 20(2) of Constitution of India, the trial Court is not empowered to give any finding under Article 20(2) of Constitution of India. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the maintainability of the complaint preferred by the prosecution before this Court. Against the first limb of argument raised by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused that the complaint is not maintainable under Section 300 of Cr.P.C.is not sustainable.