ABHAY PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 13.6.2007, Annexure P -7 and consequential charge sheet dated 6.10.2007, Annexure P -8. Brief facts : -

(2.) THE petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 21.4.2005, Annexure P -1. Before that, the Sessions Judge, Mandla in Sessions Trial No. 133/2003 made certain remarks/strictures against the petitioner. The petitioner by filing Misc.Cri.Case No. 3604/2005 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assailed that before the Principal Seat. This Court on 3.8.2005 allowed the said Misc.Cri.Case and held as under: -

(3.) SHRI D.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of the order passed in Misc.Cri.Case No.3604/2005, it was not open to the respondents to issue a charge sheet. Thus, the basic charge sheet, Annexure P -1, itself was bad in law and was not permissible and, therefore, any subsequent order passed at revisional or appellate stage must be treated as impermissible. It is further contended that the revisional authority has committed an error in reviewing the matter after six months. By placing reliance on the judgment reported in 1985 JLJ 659 (Krishna Narayan Dixit v. State of MP & others), it is contended that since no limitation is prescribed for undertaking revision in Police Regulations, six months' period prescribed in M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, the 'CCA Rules, 1966') is to be read into the Police Regulation to eradicate the vacuum and resultantly any revision made beyond six months is impermissible.