NARESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 02.06.2014, by which charges were framed against the petitioner for offence under Section 7 read with Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short "the Act of 1988").

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that for one and same incidence, five FIRs have been registered though not permissible. In four FIRs, accused are different and petitioner has been implicated in the 5th FIR. He is not involved for offence under the Act of 1988. The petitioner's implication is based on two witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that too, with the delay of 15 days. It shows nothing but false implication of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel further stated that no allegation exists for giving or acceptance of gratification or its demand with recovery of currency notes. The petitioner is, thus entitled to be discharged. Separate cases were registered only for the reason that institutions involved therein are different but it is in ignorance of the fact that incidence is one and same, though representatives of five colleges are different. In view of the above, only one case could have been registered by the CBI. A reference of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors.,2011 1 WLC(SC)(Cri) 46 has been given where second FIR was quashed in regard to same incidence. It was after considering earlier judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2001 6 SCC 181. Prayer is accordingly made to set aside the impugned order with discharge of petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI submits that five different cases have been registered in regard to five different incidences by different educational institutions. It is a case where different colleges were given recognition without confirming to the parameters and by commissioning of offence under the Act of 1988. The institutions are involving different set of persons, thus separate cases were registered and otherwise permissible. It is not a case that against one and same person and for same incidence, two FIRs have been registered. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner that for one and same incidence, different FIRs have been registered, is not correct. In four other cases, charge sheets have already been filed and trial has already commenced. The petitioner has been implicated in 5th case in regard to his own educational institution, thus ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner is not made out on facts. It is further stated that specific allegations exist against the petitioner and others for commission of offence under the Act of 1988. It was considered by the court below for framing charges. The case was inquired on information regarding act of the officials of the NCTE for grant of recognition to the certain institutions in an illegal manner. It was without confirming standard for recognition. When case was inquired, five institutions were found involved in pursuing officers of the NCTE for securing its recognition in an illegal manner. The court below has discussed the issue at length by referring to the facts while framing charges.