G D CHADHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision-petition submitted on behalf of Mr. G. D. Chadha against the charge-sheet framed by learned Special Judge. Bharatpur on January 14. 1972. The prosecution allegation in brief is that when Mr. Chadha acted as District Superintendent of Police. Bharatpur from June 8, 1960 to July 7. 1962. he had accepted gratification other than legal remuneration from persons as detailed in Annexure 'a' for doing favour to them and thereby he committed offence under Section 161. I. P. C. The prosecution allegation further is that Mr. Chadha habitually accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to accept from persons as detailed in Annexure 'a' for himself directly or through Kundan Lal and Hira Lal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward as mentioned in Section 161, I. P. C. and Section 5 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 5 of the said Act. The prosecution also alleges that Mr. Chadha. while functioning as District Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur. habitually accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to accept for himself valuable things without consideration or for a consideration which he knew to be inadequate from persons who were officially connected with him. as detailed in Annexure 'a' and thereby committed criminal misconduct as defined in Section 5 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. punishable under Section 5 (2) of the Act. On May 18. 1967. after the Anti-Corruption Department submitted a charge-sheet to the Court of the Special Judge, Bharatpur the learned Special Judge. Mr. Rajvi Amar Singh discharged the petitioner under Section 5 (1) (a) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He, however, ordered that he should be charged under Section 161, I. P. C. read with Sections 5 (1) (a) and Section 5 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He also ordered that Hira Lal and Kundan Lal should be charged under Sections 162 164 and 165-A. of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 (1) (a) and 5 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. read with Section 114 or 109. I. P. C. The aforesaid order was challenged before this Court by Mr. Chadha in Criminal Revision Petition No. 259 of 1967 and by the State of Rajasthan in Criminal Revision No. 295 of 1967. Both the revision applications were dismissed by this Court on May 21. 1970.

(2.) THE main grievance of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the trial Court did not adjudicate upon his application marked Annexure 'b' before framing the charge-sheet In that application it had been, pointed out that the Anti-Corruption Department recorded self exculpatory and confessional statements of certain police officials even before the case was registered. Such statements were got signed by their makers. These statements were recorded contrary to the provisions of Section 161. Cr. P. C. The trial Court ought to have ignored them and if those statements were to be ignored, there remained hardly any material on the record constituting prima facie case against him. Another point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the alleged allegations against him are about 10 years old. If the case is remanded to the Court below to frame a fresh charge-sheet, he would be subjected to undue harassment. Learned Deputy Government Advocate submitted that when this Court has already taken a decision by its judgment. dated May 21. 1970. it is not within its competence to give a fresh mandate. His further argument is that the allegations against the Petitioner are serious in nature and. therefore proceedings against the accused cannot be dropped at this stage.

(3.) THE first point that deserves consideration is whether, after it has already given a decision, this Court can again look into the matter.