PANKAJ PATHAK Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 10-7-2012 passed in Special (Criminal) Case No. 15/2005 by the Special Judge (Lokayukta), Jabalpur, whereby he has dismissed the applicant's application for discharge. G.P. Pathak was posted as Superintending Engineer in the Public Works Department. The applicant and co-accused Prashant Pathak are his sons. On 21-1-1995, respondent-Special Police Establishment Lokayukta, filed a charge-sheet against G.P. Pathak under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short "the Act"). According to the respondent, during the check period from 1-1-1973 to 12-11-1995 G.P. Pathak accumulated wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. The respondent thereafter on 8-7-2009 filed a supplementary charge-sheet against the applicant and Prashant Pathak for offences under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent has alleged that applicant and Prashant Pathak not only abetted G.P. Pathak to commit the offences but also submitted in different accounts fake vouchers and receipts of agricultural produce by using them as real.

(2.) The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act, against G.P. Pathak and charges under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant and Prashant Pathak.

(3.) During trial, after recording of the evidence of 27 prosecution witnesses, G.P. Pathak died on 16-9-2010. The Trial Court thereafter vide order dated 18-6-2012 has closed the prosecution case against him. It is at this stage, the applicant and Prashant Pathak filed an application for their discharge on the ground that since the main accused has died they, being the alleged abettor, cannot be prosecuted and convicted. The application was opposed by the respondent. The Trial Court disagreed with the applicant and by the impugned order dated 10-7-2012 dismissed his application for discharge.