STATE Vs. GURCHARANDASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been instituted by the order of this court dated 9-7-84 which has been passed in Criminal Revision No. 142/84. By this order dated 9-7-84 a notice to show cause had been issued to the non-petitioner Gurcharan Dass Chadha, who is the petitioner in case No. 142/84. In compliance of this order dated 9-7-84 a notice to show cause was issued as to why an additional charge u/s 5 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 be not framed. The non-petitioner Mr. Chadha has filed a reply to this notice. I have gone through the reply and I am of the view that looking to the history of the original case, it will not be just and proper to frame additional charge against the accused-petitioner. The trial court considered the relevant documents and after full consideration it passed a detailed order on 10.6.80 wherein it has been observed that the charges against the non-petitioner should be framed u/s 161, 162, Penal Code and u/s 5 (1) (a) (d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. No revision or appeal has been filed against this order by the State. An application to amend the charge was also filed by the State before the trial court on 28-4-80, which was dismissed by the trial court on 13-4-81. The prosecution did not file any appeal or revision against the order of the trial court. It will not be fair to review the question of framing his additional charges after about six years when the final charge was framed by the trial court and most of the prosecution evidence has been recorded. Moreover, charge cannot be framed on the basis of inadmissible statement which has been recorded by the Investigating Officer u/s 161, 162, Cr. P.C. and on the basis of statements which are inculpatory and confessional in nature. There is no independent evidence available on record on the basis of which an additional charge, notice of which has been given to the non-petitioner, could be framed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that even after having the material to frame charge, inherent powers cannot be exercised by the court.

(2.) Accordingly, the notice given by this court to the non-petitioners is discharged and the proceedings are disposed of. The revision petition is decided accordingly. Revision disposed of accordingly.