AJAY RAI Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter it shall be referred as 'code' for short) has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31-3-2006 passed by Additional sessions Judge cum Special Judge (Lokayukta), Jabalpur in Special Case No. 2/06 whereby the objection filed on behalf of the petitioner in filing of second charge-sheet has been rejected.

(2.) NO exhaustive statement of facts is for disposal of this revision petition. Suffice it to state that a Special Criminal Case No. 3/2000 against the petitioner was filed under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After completion of the trial the learned Special Judge, (Lokayukta) vide judgment dated 13-3-2002 in Special case No. 3/2000 has acquitted the petitioner. It was held that the sanction granted in the aforesaid case was not valid and applicant was acquitted in view of apex Court judgment in the case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra pradesh, AIR 1979 SC 677, on the basis that the prosecution cnanot be given an opportunity to filling up of lacuna by producing fresh evidence. It will be appropriate to re-produce last portion of Para 4, which reads as under:-"lastly, it was submitted by Mr. Rao that he should be given a chance to produce the materials before the Court to satisfy that the sanctioning Authority had duly applied its mind to the facts constituting the offence. We are, however, unable to accede to this prayer which has been made a very stage. The prosecution had been afforded a full and complete opportunity at the trial stage to produce whatever material it liked and it had chosen to examine two witnesses but for reason best known to it did not produce the note which formed the subject-matter of the Resolution of the sanctioning Authority - Exh. P-16. It is well settled that in a criminal case this Court or for that matter any Court should not ordinarily direct fresh evidence to fill up a lacuna deliberately left by the prosecution. The liberty of the subject was put in jeopardy and it cannot be allowed to put in jeopardy again at the instance of the prosecution which failed to avail of the opportunity afforded to it. "

(3.) LEARNED Advocate of the applicant Shri Anil Khare has stated that applicant was acquitted in view of the case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed (supra), therefore a fresh challan cannot be filed by non-applicant against applicant and it will amount to review of original judgment.