SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 28-1-2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Shillong in Special Case No. 6 of 2004 framing charges against the Petitioner under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the officials of the Criminal Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a case being Crime No. RC GWH 2004A 0022 against the Petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short) on 28-9-2004 and thereafter submitted the charge sheet before the learned Special Judge, Shillong to stand the trial. According to the prosecution, the Petitioner while working as Senior Manager (Civil) Hospital Services Consultancy Corporation (India) Ltd., Shillong during the period 1-1-1994 to 5-8-2004 was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of ' 37,36,129.70p and that he had never declared any movable or immovable assets held either in his name or in the name of his family members to his Department. At the beginning of the check period i.e. on 1-1-1994, he was in possession of assets only to the tune of '.1,48,000/-,but had acquired huge movable and immovable assets either in his name or in the name of his family members during the check period, the total value whereof was found to be worth ' 50,59,767.60p as shown in Statement-B whereas his total income from all known sources during the check period was only to the tune of ' 27,80,783.07p. The expenditures incurred by him under different heads during the check period were worked out to a tune of ' 16,05,145.17p as detailed in Statement-C and Statement-D respectively. According to the prosecution, the Petitioner has been found to be in possession of assets grossly disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of ' 37,36,129.70 which were acquired by corrupt and illegal means during the check period, which could not be satisfactorily accounted for by him. This was how he came to be charge-sheeted. The learned Special Judge after hearing both the parties passed the impugned order framing the charges as noted above.

(3.) Though a number of contentions have been advanced by Mr. S.P. Mahanta, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to assail the impugned order, I will first straightaway deal with the preliminary objection raised by Mr. V.K. Jindal, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the maintainability of this revision. If the preliminary objection is sustained, it will not be necessary to deal with the other contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. There is no express provision for revision against an order framing a charge against an accused under the penal sections of the Act. To appreciate the controversy, I will refer to the relevant provisions of Section 19(3) of the Act: