KAJOD MAL MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 165/2206 registered at Police Station A.C.D. Chowki, Bundi for the offence under Section 13(1 )(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") and the charge-sheet submitted on the basis of investigation carried out thereunder and also the criminal proceedings pending against him in the form of Criminal Case No.28/2013 in the Court of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption Cases), Kota. The main ground of challenge is that for the same offence/incident, FIR No.121/2005 was registered against the petitioner and after investigation charge-sheet as filed in the competent Court and, therefore, second F.R./chargesheet is barred by law.

(2.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that a written report came to be lodged against the petitioner on 4.6.2005 by the complainant-Shri Narayan Singh regarding illegal demand of bribe and after verification of the same, trap proceedings were led and the petitioner was caught red-handed while obtaining Rs. 10,000/- as gratification from the complainant. As a result of the proceedings so conducted, FIR No.121/2005 came to be registered for the offence under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act against the petitioner and after usual investigation charge-sheet was filed and the petitioner is facing trial for the same. It is to be noted that during the course of trap proceedings in the above case, the officers of ACD received a source information to the effect that the petitioner is in possession of assets which are disproportionate to his known source of income. On the basis of said information, the residential house of the petitioner situated at Bundi was searched, but on the basis of the search so carried out, offence under Section 13(1)(e) was neither included in the aforesaid FIR nor charge-sheet was filed for the same. During the course of investigation of FIR No.121/2005, further search was carried out and more evidence, oral and documentary, was collected and a separate FIR No. 165/2005 for offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act was registered and as a result of investigation, separate charge-sheet was filed. It is this second FIR and the charge-sheet and proceedings arising I thereunder which are the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there cannot be two or more FIRs registered in relation to the same occurrence or different events or incidents, two or more, but forming part of the same transaction. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case, two events or incidents occurred which are part of the same transaction. In the first incident/event, the petitioner was caught red-handed while accepting bribe, whereas in the course of the same transaction, the officers of ACD went ahead to search house of the petitioner and on search being made, according to ACD, it was found that the petitioner has in his possession assets which are disproportionate to his known source of income. It was further submitted that during the course of inquiry of the first FIR also, evidence regarding assets of the petitioner was collected and it has also been made part of the charge-sheet of the earlier FIR.