STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. R.K.MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge herein in this revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Code of Criminal Procedure '), is against the order dated 18.3.2003, of the learned Special Judge (Forest), Shimla, H.P., in Case No. 21 -S/7 of 1997, titled State v. Shri R.K. Mehta and Ors. whereby Respondents No. 1 to 6 and 8 herein along with deceased Respondent Shri Om Dutt Sharma, who along with co -accused Shri Satish Chand Jain, who died during pendency of the proceedings before the learned trial court and co - accused Shri D.V. Gupta, who turned approver, who were booked under Sections 420, 447, 379, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B IPC, Sections 14/30 of the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983, Sections 268 and 269 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1979, Section 38 of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, were discharged under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure as under: For these reasons, therefore, owners accused, namely, Kusum S. Chand and Rajesh Jain are discharged under Section 120 -B, 420, 201, 447, 379 I.P.C. and the official - accused are discharged under Section 120 -B, 420, 201, 447, 379, 467, 468, 471 I.P. C., Section 14(30) (3) of the H.P. Specific Corruption Act and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) IT shall be pertinent to notice at the very outset that earlier vide order dated 25.8.2001, the learned trial court had proceeded to frame charges against all the accused except deceased accused Shri Satish Chand Jain, in the following terms: In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the documents placed by the accused on record under Section 239 Code of Criminal Procedure upon consideration of the police report and documents sent therewith, it appears that there is a prima -facie case and sufficient grounds to presume that the accused R.K. Mehta has committed offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act 1947, accused R.S. Chandel, Om Dutt Sharma, Krishan Lal, Jagdish Chand Pant and Ganga Ram have committed offences under Section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act 1947; accused Rajesh Jain has committed offence under Section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 38 of the H.P. Town and Country Planning Act 1977 and under Section 384 of the M.C. Act 1979; accused D.V. Gupta has committed offences under Sections 120 -B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and accused S. Kusum Chand has committed offence under Sections 120 -B, 420 of the Indian Penal Code; under Section 38 of the H. P. Town and Country Planning Act 1977 and under Section 384 of the M.C. Act 1979. Charges as ordered framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) THE impugned order dated 18.3.2003, was passed by the learned trial Court against the above backdrop.