BALKRISHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 481 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 23-2-2001, passed by the learned Special Judge (Forest), Shimla, whereby a charge against the accused-petitioner (hereafter referred to as 'the accused') has been ordered to be framed under Sections 409, 420, 120-B and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and has been accordingly framed.

(2.) Case of the prosecution against the accused is that Child Welfare Council of India sent 3500 Greeting Cards of the value of Rs. 7,941.30 paise for sale by Child Welfare Council of Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Council). The State Council sold the Greeting Cards through the office of H. P. Vidhan Sabha. A sum of Rs. 7000.00 realised as sale proceeds was paid by the Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, Himachal Pradesh to the State Council. Two receipts each amounting to Rs. 1750.00 and one amounting to Rs. 3500.00 were issued by Uma Joshi alias Uma Sharma, who was working as the Executive Officer of the State Council at the material time. The accused is stated to be working as Accountant at that time. This amount, however, was not accounted for in the account books of the State Council and was not sent to the Child Welfare Council of India. On investigation, the investigating agency found that this amount had been misappropriated by said Uma Joshi and the accused and, thus, cheated the council of the said amount. The investigating agency moved for prosecution sanction against said Uma Joshi and the accused which was granted in the case of the accused but was refused in the case of Uma Joshi. A charge-sheet was, thus, presented by the investigating agency against the accused, mentioning Uma Joshi in column No. 2 of the form of the charge sheet as a person against whom the charge sheet was not submitted. After hearing the parties and perusal of the material placed on record, the learned Special Judge found that the material on record, if remains unrebutted, it appears, would lead to the conviction of the accused. Accordingly, he passed the impugned order directing framing of the charge against the accused as aforesaid and by a separate order of the same day, framed the charge.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the accused has preferred the present petition.