LAWS(P&H)-2014-5-974

RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On May 19, 2014
RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 17.4.2014 (Annexure P-7).

(2.) Briefly stated, petitioner is facing trial in respect of FIR No. 24 dated 30.4.2002 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Section 7, 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act").

(3.) The details of FIR are not required to be given. Randhir Singh @ Dheera and Prem Sagar were initially arrayed as accused in this case, but during the pendency of the trial, they were granted pardon on the condition of their being making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within their knowledge relating to offence under Section 307 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 306 (1) Cr.P.C. read with Section 5(2) of the Act, vide order dated 25.7.2002 passed by Sh. S.N. Aggarwal, the then Special Judge, Patiala. Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, Special Judge, Patiala vide order dated 24.9.2010 ordered to try Randhir Singh @ Dheera and Prem Sagar as accused in this case under Section 308 Cr.P.C. on the ground that they have violated the condition on the basis of which they were granted pardon. The said order was affirmed by this Court in Crl.M.No. M 31577 of 2010 (O&M) vide order dated 15.2.2013. Randhir Singh @ Dheera and Prem Sagar preferred SLP No, 4797 of 2013 with Crl.M. Petition No. 14630 of 2013 challenging the order dated 24.9.2010 passed by Special Judge and order dated 15.2.2013 passed by this Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 22.7.2013 stayed the operation of the order dated 24.9.2010 passed by the Special Judge till further orders. The accused has now moved an application before the trial Court to stay the further proceedings of this case till the decision of SLP No. 4797 of 2013 mentioned above on the ground that Randhir Singh @ Dheera's and Prem Sagar's statement cannot be read against the petitioner.