A UMAPATHY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the dismissal of a petition filed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner, who is an officer, against whom a chargesheet is filed before the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases regarding disproportionate assets, claims that the Special Judge is not justified in dismissing the petition under Section 204 Cr.P.C. requesting him to discharge him and not to frame charges against him.

(2.) In this petition Mr.A.T.M. Rangaramanujam contends that during the course of the investigation, details of the salary income were given by the delinquent-accused. He claimed that the salary income was Rs. 4,06,123/-. The ACB officials have taken the salary income only as Rs. 2,67,783-43. On that basis, the delinquent - accused is being proceeded against for disproportionate assets and if the explanation and the salary particulars given by the accused are taken into account, there is no case for disproportionate assets. Mr. Rangaramanujam contends that nowhere in the process of enquiry has to prosecution come to the conclusion that the figures given by the accused are not correct. In such circumstances, the prosecution of the accused for disproportionate assets is baseless and the Court should have allowed the petition filed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. and it should not have framed the charges. It should have discharged the accused.

(3.) This revision is opposed even at the stage of admission by Sri N. Harisasha Reddy, the Standing Counsel for the A.C.B. He contends that the present attempt is the third attempt by the petitioner to stall the trial of the case. Earlier without giving details and by giving exaggerated figures of the salary income, the accused claimed that there is no case of disproportionate assets. Subsequently he filed W.P.No. 10300/92 and made an effort to obtain a stay order to stop the trial. Having failed in that attempt, he filed the petition under Section 204 Cr.P.C. When that was dismissed for valid and cogent reasons, he has now come forward with this revision. Thus the accused is making desperate efforts to somehow stall the trial on the case. There is absolutely no justification for admitting the revision or interfering with the order of the Special Judge.