K P AGNIHOTRI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant/Accused has directed this petition u/S. 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the charge-sheet filed against the applicant by the Inspector, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Indore in the Court of Special Judge, Dhar.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass are, that at the time of incident, in the year 1988, the applicant was posted as Sub-Inspector in the Office of the Regional Transport Commissioner at Dhar. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that the applicant when posted as Sub-Inspector in the Transport Department at Dhar, in the month of October, 1988, registered one vehicle Tempo Trax bearing registration No. MK-F-6930 indicating that the laden weight of the said vehicle is 1400 Kg. and sitting capacity 06 + 1 and as such recovered the tax from the owner @ Rs. 240/- per year. It is also alleged that at the time of the incident the applicant had no jurisdiction to register the vehicle in question for which he was not authorised. It is alleged that the applicant, while, registering the said vehicle, with the intention to extend monetary advantage to the owner, reduced the sitting capacity of the said vehicle from 8 + 1 to 6 + 1 passengers only and similarly reduced the weight of the vehicle from 1950 kg. to 1400 kg., when the said vehicle was temporarily registered by the Registering Authority, Indore for the sitting capacity at 8 + 1 on a temporary certificate of Registration. It is alleged that by reducing the weight of the vehicle in question and the sitting capacity, the State Government was put to loss due to recovery of the tax at the lesser rate. By reducing the sitting capacity to 6 + 1, the owner of the vehicle got the authority to ply the vehicle on the National Highways. On the aforesaid facts, an offence was registered against the applicant punishable u/S. 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and on investigation a charge-sheet was filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant prayed for the quashment of the alleged charge-sheet mainly on the ground that in view of the provisions of M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1985, which was then in force, the tax recovered by the applicant was proper and prima facie no case of pecuniary advantage to the owner and the loss to the government is made out against the applicant. He also submitted that the charge-sheet filed against the applicant also deserves to be quashed on the ground of delay. Learned counsel argued that the matter relates to December, 1988. The First Information Report was registered on 22-12-1995 and the charge-sheet against the applicant was filed on 17-9-1998. On the aforesaid facts the charge-sheet deserves to be quashed on the ground of delay. Learned counsel also submitted that in the later years the proper tax was recovered from the owner in accordance with the amended provisions of M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam as amended from time to time. Learned counsel submitted that, no prima facie evidence or material is available on the record for prosecuting the applicant for the offences u/Ss. 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. He relied on the decisions of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1998 SC 128 : (1998 Cri LJ 1) M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, AIR 1989 SC 2222; State of U.P. v. R. K. Shrivastava, 1992 (1) SCC 225 : (1992 Cri LJ 2717); Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Naik and 1998 JT (7) SC 1 : (1998 Cri LJ 4596) Rajdev Sharma v. State of Bihar.