DAMODARDEO Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is directed against the order dated 12.5.97of Ist Addl. Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Indore, passed in Special Case No. 4/94, whereby a direction for framing charge under S. 5(1)(e) read with 5(2), 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been made.

(2.) THIS case has got a chequered history. Investigation against the accused -applicant was started in February' 84. His income and the property earned between the period 1.4.76 to 31.3.84 was taken into consideration. The Investigating Officer found property to be disproportionate to his income of the relevant period. As there was delay in the matter a petition was filed by the accused -applicant. The same was disposed of with the direction that the matter shall be raised before the Special Judge, who shall consider over the matter.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there has been double enquiry (preliminary and final) and, therefore, the statements recorded and the evidence collected on a subsequent enquiry cannot be read as it is hit under section 162 Cr Pc. The second contention of the learned counsel is that while framing charges specially in cases like this where a person is accused of holding disproportionate property the document adduced and submissions made by the accused shall have to be considered and as the Judge has failed to do so the charge is invalid.