H P KUCHCHAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal misc. petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing of the first information report No. 16/90 dated 24. 3. 1990; the entire proceedings pending before the Special Judge Anti Corruption, Jaipur (4/1994) and for awarding compensation to the applicant.

(2.) THE applicant came in service as an engineer in Public Works Department on 8. 5. 1954 and continued upto 30. 4. 1992. On having come to know through reliable sources that the applicant had earned properties dis-proportionate to his income during the period from 8. 5. 1955 to 1982, that the Director General Anti Corruption had lodged a report (16/90 ). THE primary allegation in the report was that the petitioner had properties for excessive amount of Rs. 1892781/ -. THEreafter, the investigation was handed over to Additional Superintendent of Police. On concluding of the investigation and after collecting the evidence, challan came to be filed on 5. 4. 1994 for the offence under Section 13 (1) (e) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) EVEN the learned Government Advocate had made a request in the month of April, 2001 that the matter may be heard early because record has been called since long and the trial is held up. Then, the matter was ordered to be listed on 24. 4. 2001, but could not be heard. EVEN the learned trial Court, vide its letter dated 17. 9. 2001, requested the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), High Court, Jaipur, by inviting his attention towards Section 19 (3) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 wherein the said provision has been made notwithstanding any contain in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said provision reads as under:- &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp" no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. " The learned trial Court also invited attention towards the provision of Section 22 of the Act of 1988 particularly clause (d) which reads as under:- &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp" in sub-section (1) of section 397, before the Explanation, the following proviso had been inserted, namely:- &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp" Provided that where the powers under this section are exercised by a court on an application made by a party to such proceedings, the court shall not ordinarily call for the record of the proceedings,- (a) without giving the other party an opportunity of showing cause why the record should not be called for; or (b) if it is satisfied that an examination of the record of the proceedings may be made from the certified copies. " Therefore a request was made by the learned trial Court to place the letter before the Hon'ble High Court and after seeking directions, the record may be returned. The next date of this case, before the trial Court was 10. 10. 2001. A perusal of the record reveals that letter of the trial Court dated 17. 9. 2001 was dealt with by the office, though only on 1. 3. 2002, but it does seems to have been placed before the Court.