OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Criminal revision petition No: 32 of 1979 titled Om Prakash Vs. State and Criminal Revision Petition No : 36 of 1979 titled Kuldeep Rai Vs State as identical questions of law and fact involved in both the petitions.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the petition are that the Anti Corruption Organization challenged the petitioners Om Prakash Sethi and Kuldeep Rai, relevant time serving as Assistant Sub -Inspectors of Police, in two separate cases in the court of learned Special Judge, anti -Corruption, Jammu for offences under section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption, Act, 2006. Both the accused were later on charge sheeted by the learned Special Judge for offences under section 5 2 read with section 5 1 d of the J&K. Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006. At the stage when the court started recording prosecution evidence, both the accused submitted applications stating therein that since the investigating agency had not followed the mandatory requirements of Rule 347 of the J&K Police Rules their prosecution was vitiated and they could not be tried by the Court. The applications were resisted by the prosecution. The learned Special Judge dismissed the applications vide his order dated 27 -2 -79. Aggrieved, the petitioners have come up to this court by means of the above noted revision petitions seeking quashing of the proceedings.

(3.) THAT the petitioners were challaned by the Anti Corruption Organization and charge sheeted by the learned Special Judge for offences under section 5 2/5 ld of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2006 is not denied. It is also not disputed that Rule 349 of the J&K Police Rules was not complied with before the prosecution against the petitioners was launched The argument of the learned Addl. Advocate General, however, is that Rule 349 of the J&K Police Rules has no application to the facts of the instant cases and as such its compliance was not warranted. Mr. Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, asserts that Rule 349 of the Police Rules was applicable to the case and its non -compliance has rendered the prosecution illegal.