L BHUPATHY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to declare that Section 19(3) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is unconstitutional and void in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent filed charge-sheet against the petitioner before the IX Addl. City Civil Judge-cum-Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai in Crime No. R.C. 50 (A)/94 under Sections 7 and 13(2) readwith Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The said case has been numbered as C.C. No. 203 of 1997. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a petition before the said Court under Section 395, Criminal Procedure Code, questioning the jurisdiction of the trial Court, in view of the fact that no valid notification has been issued by the Central Government as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act, and prayed for an order to make reference to the High Court. The trial Court dismissed the said petition. On these backgrounds the petitioner has approached this Court, questioning the constitutional validity of the said provision.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that by introducing the said section the petitioner's right to move any Court for the purpose of stay of the proceedings taken under the Act is curtailed and so it offends Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and it is also an arbitrary exercise of powers. He has also submitted that the said Section should be struck down as it is a colourable legislation, and, as such it is invalid in law. His further submitted that it also discriminate the petitioner from other accused. According to him, even with respect to the other accused who are facing criminal prosecution even for serious offences are not restricted to that extent. So, it offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India.