MANJINDER SINGH KANG Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") for quashing of order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure P/15) passed by learned Trial Court whereby application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code in Sessions Case No. 187/2005 arising out of FIR No. 63 dated 27.09.2002, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(C)(D)&(E) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the instant case was investigated by the police and thereafter, challan was presented. During the pendency of the trial, further investigation was carried out and supplementary challan under Section 173(8) of the Code was filed wherein the petitioner is alleged to have been exonerated and his all properties, sources of income from the business and various other transactions have been taken into account in further investigation. In spite of that fact, the trial continued on the basis of challan initially filed and the evidence was led by the prosecution. When the prosecution evidence was closed and the case was at the stage of statement under Section 313 of the Code, the prosecution moved an application under Section 311 of the Code and sought direction to permit the prosecution to examine the other witnesses which were relevant for the purposes of subsequent report under Section 173(8) of the Code. The said application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Amritsar vide impugned order dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure P/15). Thereafter, there were many rounds of litigation and many criminal revisions have been filed. CRR No. 526 of 2008 and CRR No. 678 of 2009 need mention. These criminal revisions are directed against order dated 18.12.2007. CRR No. 526 of 2008 filed by the State of Punjab was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.12.2010 (Annexure P/25) wherein it was mentioned that the respondent i.e. the present petitioner herein will be at liberty to seek relief available to him in accordance with law against the impugned order. Now, the petitioner is before this Court against the order dated 18.12.2007 which was impugned in the aforesaid revisions.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that challan was presented against the petitioner without any proper investigation as well as without looking into the sources, assets and liabilities of the petitioner. This fact was admitted by the Investigating Officer in his affidavit dated 20.02.2003 (Annexure P/6). Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that by the time the said affidavit (Annexure P/6) was filed, the police had already submitted challan in a Special Court. Thereafter, the case was investigated at the instance of State itself wherein the supplementary challan under Section 173(8) of the Code was presented wherein the petitioner was found to be having the source of income proportionate to his assets. There was nothing disproportionate to the known sources of income as alleged in the earlier challan submitted by the prosecution. The said investigation was carried out after seeking prior permission from the competent Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner candidly admitted that it is the choice of the prosecution to examine any witness in the present case. The application moved by the prosecution itself has been dismissed and the criminal revision was also dismissed as withdrawn by the prosecution. Learned counsel further contends that the prosecution wanted to lead the evidence but prayer of prosecution has been rejected by the Court. Even the criminal revision preferred against the same impugned order was also dismissed as withdrawn by the prosecution.