KISHORE SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A charge can be added, amended or altered at any time during trial. Even then petitioner Kishore Singh aggrieved by order dated 29.7.1998 has preferred this revision petition. He is within his right. I have heard his counsel as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

(2.) This revision petition should have been decided alongwith SB Criminal Revision Petitions No. 597/98 and 625/98 but the office did not tag it with them neither attention was drawn that some revision petitions were submitted by co-accused persons. However, while deciding similar criminal revision petitions on 11.1.1999, brother Hon'ble G.L. Gupta, J. allowed them and set aside the order qua those petitioners and directed that learned Special Judge shall pass speaking order after hearing counsel for the parties in the light of observations made by him. Learned PP submitted that such an order can be passed in this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned Special Judge charged the petitioner for offence under Sec. 5 (1) (d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for which there is no sanction. He also submitted that the learned Judge framed charge against the petitioner under Sec. 467 IPC for which there is no sanction. I find it from the order dated 26.12.1995 sanctioning prosecution of the petitioner that the sanction has been given under Sec. 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. There is no sanction for offence under Sec. 467 IPC. It is submitted that those charges can be framed for which there is sanction and that too under the new Act under which sanction has been given. He also submitted that the learned Judge has not passed a speaking order and the charges of the sections stated above, for which there was no sanction, have been levelled against the petitioner without assigning any reason. There is force in the argument of the counsel for petitioner that reasons should be assigned and speaking order should be passed.