STATE OF HARYANA Vs. JAGDISH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Vinod Kumar had applied for 12 -1/2 H.P. connection. He deposited the security but was not in a position to obtain the loan. Vinod Kumar could not install the electric motor. He could only install 5 H.P. motor. The bill was being issued for a motor of 12 -1/2 H.P. for 8 to 9 months. The said Vinod Kumar filed an application to charge the bills according to the motor installed at the spot. The Junior Engineer reported that 5 H.P. motor was working at the spot. Vinod Kumar was advised to meet Jagdish Chander respondent. Jagdish Chander was Commercial Assistant in the Haryana State Electricity Board.

(2.) THE learned Special Judge framed charge against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. Nine prosecution witnesses were examined. The statement of the respondent in terms of Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. The defence of the respondent was that he was innocent. He states that he is Secretary of the Haryana State Electricity Board Workers Union. He has to start agitation against the Board. The police falsely implicated him.

(3.) THE learned trial court concluded that the sanction order granted does authorise the Court to take cognizance. It only authorised prosecution of the respondent accused. The request of the prosecution that the subsequent sanction may be taken consideration was rejected. In this process holding that no proper sanction to take cognizance has been granted, the learned trial court discharged the respondent.