STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARNAM SINGH BEHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision filed by the state against the order of the learned Special Judge, Patiala dated 22nd October, 1981 by which he discharged all the respondents by coming to a finding that no offence under section 5(2) read with section 5(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act is made out and therefore, he as a Special Judge was not competent to try the other offenses. He, however, directed that it would be open to the prosecuting agency to submit the challan for other offenses in a Court competent to try those offences.

(2.) THE facts which gave rise to this revision are that a chargesheet was submitted against all the sixteen respondents under section 5(2) read with section 5(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 120 -B read with sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. the allegation against five respondents namely Harnam Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Vijay Kumar Sharma, Lachhman Dass Paul and Arun Kumar Gautam was that they entered into a conspiracy with other co -respondents and the aforesaid offences were committed. The case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge for the reason that these five aforesaid respondents being public servants have committed offence under section 5(2) read with section 5(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the learned Special Judge, after going through the record and the challan submitted by the prosecuting agency, came to finding vide a detailed order, that there was no evidence against the aforesaid five respondents from which prima facie a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, can be made out. The learned Special Judge has discussed the documents and the evidence relied upon by the prosecuting agency in this regard. The learned Special Judge came to a finding that all that can be said at best against these five respondents was that they were negligent in the performance of there duties I have also gone through the order of the learned Special Judge and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned Special Judge.

(3.) THE revision was admitted by Surinder Singh, J. on 5.4.1982 and the admitting order in the following terms : - "Inter alia it is submitted that the trial Court was not legally justified in splitting up the case in two and sending one part to another Court." But I feel that as the learned Special Judge came to a finding that no case under the Prevention of Corruption Act was made out, the only course open to him was to return the challan for presenting the same to the proper Court. Under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, the learned Special Judge was only competent to try other offences if he could take cognizance of the case as Special Judge in view of the order of the learned Special Judge, the prosecuting agency is entitled to present the challan in the Court competent to try the other offences and during the trial of the remaining offences if the trial Court finds any evidence regarding the commission of an offence under section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the case can be sent again for trial to the Special Judge. However, if the C.B.I. chooses to put in the challan in any other Court, the copies already supplied to the respondents will be treated as copies supplied to them in that Court.