HARDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 28.2.2012 whereby charge has been framed against the petitioner under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC and Sections 212, 216 IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that FIR No.22 dated 29.8.2002 under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC was registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, F.S.I., Mohali against the petitioner. The petitioner remained absconded for 7 years. However, he surrendered before the Ilaqa Magistrate on 17.10.2011 and was remanded for one day police remand. During the interrogation the petitioner submitted that major part of his income accrued as interest, loan, gifts and the shares sold by his daughter, istridhan of his wife and sale of gold by her and salary of his son were not included in his income. Furthermore, 1/3rd share of the purchase amount of shop contributed by Balbir Kaur, mother of the petitioner, was also included in his expenditure and his expenditure and income were thus, wrongly assessed to be disproportionate to known sources of income of the petitioner. However, in the subsequent proceedings after joining the investigation, these sources were revealed as a result of which supplementary statement under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was submitted.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the documents and the statements forming basis of report under Section173(8) Cr.P.C. are required to be taken into consideration while framing charges in view of the law laid down in Rama Choudhary v. State of Bihar, 2009 2 RCR(Cri) 571wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if the police has submitted a challan after investigation in Court, still the police can further investigate the matter but police has no right to re-investigate the case. The contention of learned counsel is that present is a case of further investigation and not fresh or re-investigation, therefore, in view of aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.