PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Prakash Chandra Jaiswal was a Sub-Inspector in L.I.U. (Local Intelligence Unit) posted in District Farrukhabad, in the year 1975-77. A report was lodged agaist him and another person by Sri Ram Prakash Tripathi, a Member of Parliament. An investigation was made and a charge-sheet was submitted on 18-12-78 under Ss. 161, 120B, I.P.C. and S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case was registered as S.T. No. 1 of 1979 before the Court of Special Judge, Farrukhabad. The petitioner has quoted in para 20 of the affidavit that as many as 50 dates were fixed in this case in the said trial. During the long drawn trial on 50 different dates evidence of 25 witnesses could be recorded besides one Court witness. One defence witness was also examined. The learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad by his judgment dated 10-11-81 discharged the accused applicant for want of proper sanction for the prosecution in offences under the provisions of prevention of Corruption Act etc. The petitioner was already suspended w.e.f. 31-12-77. The suspension order continued even after the discharge of the accused applicant. The co-accused of the applicant Chatrapati Singh, Head constable who was also discharged along with the applicant had also applied for reinstatement with the applicant to the S. S. P. Jhanshi. The co-accused Chhatrapti Singh, Head constable was reinstated but the applicant was not reinstated.

(2.) A fresh charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant after moving the defect pointed out in the judgment of discharge passed by the Sessions Judge. A fresh S.T. No. 2 of 1983 was registered against the applicant on 24/08/1983. Again in the fresh sessions trial, 38 dates were fixed. The applicant is resident of District Aligarh and he had to attend the Court at Farrukhabad on each and every date in the said trial. The agony of the trial continued till the end of July, 1986.

(3.) After 38 dates in the trial before the Special Judge, the learned Judge expressed himself that he would like to re-examine the witnesses afresh as the old procedure adopted by his predecessor was wrong. After recording the statements on 28-8-86, which was 51st date in the second trial, the Special Judge (P.C. Act) directed the Addl. Government Advocate to file application for spiliting of the case. Thus, an application was moved by the learned Addl. Government Advocate and one Sessions trial was spirited into seven sessions trials and numbered as separate Sessions Trials.