JAMWANT JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.B. Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State of U.P. and perused the materials on record.

(2.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing an order dated 5.10.2004 passed in Special Case No. 14 of 2002 by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), district Varanasi, refusing to discharge the applicants in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and deciding to frame charges against the applicants.

(3.) The case set up by the prosecution on the basis of an application by opposite party No. 2 Retd. Lt. Col. Jagdish Singh to the Director General of Police, Lucknow (Anti Corruption) was that the applicant No. I Jamwant Jaiswal who was posted as Head Constable at police station Naugarh had earned assets disproportionate to his income. After enquiry on the direction of the Director General of Police, an F.I.R. was registered against the applicants by Babu Chand, Inspector (Anti Corruption) Organisation, C.I.D., U.P. Lucknow under sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 464, 465, 468, 471 and 120 B I.P.C., P.S. Chaubeypur, Varanasi, at case Crime No. 210/99. The allegations in the F.I.R. were that the enquiry showed that the applicant No. I Head Constable Jamwant Jaiswal in the period of his service from 20.11.1976 to 18th August, 1999 had spent Rs. 3,92,475.92 for purchasing land and other items in the names of his brothers and spent Rs. 2,88,633.12 for maintenance of his family, hence he had incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 6,81,109.04 whereas the applicants total income from various sources including his ancestral land and shops was Rs. 5,90,966.24 and in this manner his earnings were Rs. 90,245,80 less than his expenditure. There was no adequate explanation for this additional amount of expenditure, hence the inference was drawn that the applicant Jamwant Jaiswal had some unaccounted income and hence he was liable to be prosecuted for an offence under Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. There was also allegation of preparing some forged records for showing the property of applicant No. 1 as the property of his brother co-accused applicant Angad Prasad Jaiswal in pursuance of the conspiracy entered into between them.