SANT RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a challan being put up against him, the petitioner was charge -sheeted by Special Judge, Anti -Corruption. Jammu, u/s 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2006, hereinafter the Act. Some evidence for the prosecution was also recorded during the trial when it was discovered that the prosecution was not supported by a proper sanction in terms of Section 6 of the Act. The public Prosecutor made an application seeking permission of the court to withdraw the challan. This prayer was granted by the court, which ultimately discharged the petitioner by its order dated 11.9. 1979. Thereafter on the same day, a fresh challan for the same offence was produced by the prosecution before the Special Judge, for which a sanction had been obtained by it on 17 -4 -79.

(2.) THE petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in the High Court in Criminal Revision petition No. 92 of 1979 on the ground that he in terms of Cl. (b) of Section 494 Criminal Procedure Code ought to have been acquitted by the Special Judge and not discharged. This plea found favour with the High Court, which modified the order of the Special Judge and held that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been acquitted. It, however, refrained from expressing its opinion on the point as to whether or not a fresh trial of the petitioner for the same offence would be barred under Section 403 Cr. Pr. Code and left a decision on this point to the trial court itself.

(3.) THE petitioner, while invoking the provisions of Section 403, again questioned the jurisdiction of the Special Judge to try him for the very same offence, for which he had earlier earned acquittal by force of the order passed by the High Court on 7 -4 -1980 in Criminal Revision Petition No.: 92 of 1979. His contention was over -ruled by the learned Special Judge on two grounds; one that his earlier trial in the absence of a proper sanction, was clearly barred, and two, that the trial within the meaning of Section 403 Cr. Pr. Code implied a full dressed trial, necessarily comprising of all steps right from the framing of the charge upto the final adjudication, including recording of the statement of the accused u/s 342 Cr. Pr. Code. The petitioner feels aggrieved of this order, hence the revision petition.