CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been moved under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. for setting aside the order dated 26th September, 2006 passed by the Court of learned Additional sissions Judge, Gurgaon in the Crl, Revision Ne, 28 of 2005 against the order dated 15th February, 2005 passed by the learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon framing the charges against the petitioner in case fir Ne, 28 dated 31st Oeteber, 2001 registered under Sections 218, 420, 487 and 468 of IPC at Police Station District Vigilance bureau Gurgaon, Haryana.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that on 3rd march, 1997, the petitioner had issued 177 driving licenses without following the orocedure prescribed under the provisions of motor Vehicle Act and Rules framed therein. These licenses were entered in the official register at Serial No. 1046 to 1222 and license fee of Rs. 13. 210/- was deposited in the State Bank of India, Ferozpur Jhirka, gurgaon in the Head-0041 dated 5th March, 1997. On 16th November, 2000. the Director State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana chandigarh submitted his enquiry report vide No, 16697 dated 18th November, 2000 te the Chief Secretary, Haryana exonerating the allegations levelled against him and stated that en the basis of relevant record and statement recorded during the course of enquiry, it was found that the concerned 177 driving licenses were issued to all the applicants, who were residents of Sub-Division Ferozepur jhirka, Gurgaon and that the petitioner was fully competent to issue driving licenses during his period of posting because all the applicants were original residents of the aforesaid area. On 31st October, 2001, FIR No. 26 of 2001 was registered against the petitioner and other co-accused under sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code read with 13 (l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') by Vigilance Bureau Gurgaon, Haryana. On 15th april, 2002, the charge-sheet was filed under the aforementioned Sections. The learned Special Judge, Gurgaon vide his order dated 12th December, 2002, discharged the petitioner and other co-accused under Section 13 (l) (d) of the Act and ordered to put the case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, gurgaon for trial in accordance with law after framing the formal charge under the aforesaid Sections of IPC. This Court vide order dated 3rd May, 2003 rendered in Crl. Revision No. 675 of 2003 observed that the abovementioned order of the learned Special Judge for framing of charges under specific Sections of IPC is without jurisdiction and is also grossly prejudicial te the petitiener and ethers and therefore, the petitiener and others, en appearance befofe the learned CJM shall be at liberty te argue that ne charge has been made eut against them and the Court shall preeeed in aecerdance with the previsions of Sections 238, 239 and 240 of the Cr. P. C. Vide order dated 15th February, 2005 the learned CJM charged the petitioner under sections 218, 420, 467, 468 of IPC and discharged under Sections 471 and 120-B of ipc. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, gurgaon vide his order dated 26th September, 2006 passed in Criminal Revision No. 26 of 2005 filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of the learned CJM held that the issuance of every license was a separate offence and by virtue of Section 219 of cr. P. C. , no other option is left with this court except to remit the case back to the learned CJM, Gurgaon with direction to direct the prosecution agency to submit different charge-sheet under Section 173 of Cr. P. C. Joining 3 offences in one charge-sheet, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred while holding that the issuance of every licence was a separate offence and by virtue of Section 219 of Cr. P. C. , Joint charges can be framed only for three offences of the same kind within one year. He passed this order ignoring the applicability of Section 220 of the Cr. P. C. He had ignored the peculiar fact that there is a want of sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P. C. He has also not noticed that there was a delay of 41/2 years in lodging the FIR by the prosecution. There is no proof that the petitioner has taken any pecuniary advantage from the licence holders. That the following points arise in this petition for kind determination:

(3.) IN reply filed by way of affidavit of Sh. Jagdish Parshad, Deputy Superintendent of police, State Vigilance Bureau (H), Gurgaon range, Gurgaon on behalf of the State of haryana, it has been averred that the prosecution was launched against the petitioner who was posted as SDO at Ferozepur Jhirka in 1977 on the allegation that 177 licenses were issued in a day on 3rd March, 1997 before relinquishing charge and after departmental Inquiry into the matter, the FIR was lodged against 13 persons and charge-sheet was submitted for trial of the accused including the petitioner under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Section 13 ibid; that Section 219 of Cr. P. C. clearly indicates the preparation of separate charge-sheets; that the petitioner has committed the offence in connivance with different persons and hence, there is no continuity of the offence, as each licence made of different person constitute a fresh and separate offence; that at this stage, it is not proper to observe as to whether the sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P. C. is needed or not or prima facie case is made out or not as it will be decided at the subsequent appropriate stage; that the learned Additional sessions Judge, Gurgaon did not charge-sheet the petitioner and others for the offence committed by them under Section 13 (l) (d) ibid. Lastly, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed.