KAMAL DEV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the course of vigilance inquiry it was revealed that the petitioner Kamal Dev was in possession of property disproportionate to his known sources of income and for that he could not account for satisfactorily. This brought him under the shadow of section 5(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Accordingly, to F.I.R. was recorded at P.S. Vigilance Bureau, Karnal on 2/10/1984. A challan was presented in due course in the Court of Special Judge, Am bala.

(2.) The petitioner took objection to the jurisdiction of the Court. According to him his entire service career had been at Chandigarh though he was employee of the Haryana Government. Furthermore, his contention was that the property said to have been acquired by him, disproportionate to his known sources of income, was statedly at Chandigarh, Panchkula and Mohali, while he was serving at Chandigarh. Thus, it was urged that since the criminal misconduct attributed to the petitioner was committed while he was posted at Chandigarh, then it is his misconduct which is the subject matter of charge and not each of the properties, one of which happens to be situated at Panch kula (Haryana). The learned Special Judge, Ambala vide his order dated 26/2/1986, now sought to be revised, rejected such a plea which has given rise to the present petition.

(3.) The relevant penal section which is at tracted to the case reads as follows: 5. Criminal misconduct in discharge of official duty.-(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct. (e) If he, or any person on his behalf is in possession of or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession, for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known source of income.