SODHI RAM Vs. U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order, the above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as petitioners have challenged the order dated 1.9.2000, whereby charge was ordered to be framed against them.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner Sodhi Ram has submitted that sanction for prosecution of the said petitioner was sought by the respondent but the same was declined by the competent authority vide order dated 26.8.2000 (Annexure P-A). Hence, the Special Judge fell in error in ordering the framing of the charge against petitioner Sodhi Ram under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for shrot). Petitioner Sodhi Ram was working as Controller of Examination, Panjab University, Chandigarh since the year 1998. Petitioner Sodhi Ram had been falsely involved in this case. In fact, the re-examination was conducted under his chairmanship. There was no material on record to proceed against petitioner Sodhi Ram under Section 409 IPC. The supplementary statement of Asha Chawla was recorded after two years with regard to involvement of petitioner Sodhi Ram in the crime. The confession of co-accused Dhan Singh could not be relied upon as the same was allegedly made by him in police custody.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner Dhan Singh has submitted that no sanction for prosecution of the said petitioner had been sought. Charge had been framed against him on the assumption that he had been removed from service. The supplementary statement of Asha Chawla was recorded after two years with regard to involvement of petitioner Dhan Singh in the crime. The alleged confession had been extracted from petitioner Dhan Singh while he was in custody and the same was not voluntary.