STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHAKUNTALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The present revision application has been filed by the State challenging the order dated 19-7-2000 in special Case No. 12/1997. The respondents are original accused nos. 4 and 5, who are prosecuted for offences under sections 13 (1 ) (e) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption act (hereinafter referred to as "act") read with section 109 of Indian Penal Code and 13 ( l) (e) and 13 (2) of the Act read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. In Special Case no. 12/1997 before the Special Judge, amravati, the case of prosecution was that Shri. T. J. Meshram, who is accused no. 1 in special case No. 12/97, was Regional Transport officer at Amravati at the relevant time and as such a public servant, had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income and had committed offences under the Act. It was the case of the prosecution that said Shri, meshram had purchased certain properties in the name of respondent no. 1 from the earning made illegally by said Shri. Meshram. The case of the prosecution was that aplot bearing no. 63 situated at Trimurti Nagar, Nagpur, was purchased by said Shri. Meshram, who is an accused no. 1 in the special Case No. 12/1997. It was also the case of the prosecution that two trucks were also purchased in the name of respondent no. 1, who according to prosecution was the mother of one Smt. Raj gajanan Jodh, who was mistress of said Shri. Meshram. The prosecution had relied upon the statement of vendor of the plot, and the persons who have sold the trucks to respondent no. 1 to substantiate that the plot and the vehicles were actually purchased by said Shri. Meshram in the name of respondent no. 1 herein. According to the prosecution, respondent no. 1 was an abetor/conspirator for commission of offences under the Act. Insofar as respondent no. 2 is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that one truck was purchased by said Shri. Meshram in the name of respondent no. 2. In support of this fact, the prosecution relied on the statement of the husband of the owners, who stated that the truck was actually purchased by original accused no. 1 in the name of respondent no. 2 herein. Relying on this material, the prosecution filed charge-sheet, against respondents herein for the offences above mentioned. After filing of the charge-sheet, process was issued against all the accused and respondents herein filed an application dated 2-12-1997 for their discharge. The said application was opposed by the prosecution and after hearing both sides, learned Special Judge by order dated 19-7-2000 discharged the accused.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Mirza, learned additional Public Prosecutor for applicant and mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) SINCE this is revision application against order discharging the accused, it is appropriate to state what the Apex Court has observed insofar as framing of charge is concerned. In this connection, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1996 Supreme Court Cases 1744 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath thapa, Etc. ). The Apex Court has observed in paragraph 32 as under :-