Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nagin Chand Kothari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... on 4 December, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
MCRC No.31567/2018
Shushil Chandra Singh Bais vs. The State of M.P.
MCRC No.31540/2018
Ashok Kumar Baijal vs. State of M.P.
MCRC No.41246/2018
Nagichand Kothari vs. State of M.P.
Indore: Dated:-04.12.2018
Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the petitioners in MCRC
Nos.31567/2018 & 31540/2018.
Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioner in
MCRC No.41246/2016.
Shri Manoj Dwivedi, Additional Advocate General with
Shri Abhinav Malhotra, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the petitions are analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court.
2. These petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of order dated 16.07.2018 passed in Special S.T. No.05/2013.
3. Learned Senior counsel has argued before this Court that the First Information Report was lodged against the present petitioner and 16 others for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and read with Section 109, 201 and 120-B of IPC. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed in the year 2013 and charges were HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE framed on 25.05.2016.
4. Learned counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that one of the co-accused who was Member, Legislative Assembly preferred a Revision before this Court i.e. Criminal Revision No.1011/2016 "Ramesh Mendola Vs. Special Police Establishment Lokayukt and Others" and the Division Bench of this Court has quashed the charges against the Member, Legislative Assembly. Undisputedly, the judgement was passed by this Court on 07.04.2017 meaning thereby after 07.04.2017 neither Member of Parliament nor any Member, Legislative Assembly, is an accused.
5. A specific question was asked to the Learned Public Prosecutor appearing in the matter i.e. whether any Member of Parliament or any Member of Legislative Assembly is an accused in the case or not and he has categorically stated that no Member of Parliament nor any Member of Legislative Assembly is accused in the case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India dated 14.12.2017. The order passed by the apex Court reads as under:-
"We have perused the additional affidavit dated 11.12.2017 filed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Legislative Department pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 1.11.2017.
Insofar as queries 1, 2 and 3 posed in the aforesaid order of this Court and the information sought for, further time has been prayed for by the Union of India to collect information which necessarily would involve interactions with the State Government(s) and the High Court(s).
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE Having regard to the fact that the information sought for by the Court would not be readily available and, indeed, would be a matter of collection from different agencies,as mentioned in the additional affidavit, we grant two months further time to the Union of India to collect the said information and respond to the aforesaid queries 1, 2 and 3.
Insofar as issues 4 and 5 outlined in the order dated 1.11.2017 are concerned i.e. setting up of Special Courts, a scheme, though, rudimentary at this stage, has been placed before the Court the essence of which is that based on certain calculations and perspectives with regard to the time that would be taken to dispose of the 1581/1571 cases presently pending against the elected MPs/MLAs, the Union of India proposes to set up 12 Fast Track Courts combining several State(s) in respect of which jurisdiction will be exercised by one Special Court. The aforesaid Scheme has been planned as a tentative measure and it is stated at para 9 of the Additional Affidavit of the Union of India that once the further information is collected in respect of queries 1, 2 and 3, the Scheme may be suitably modified.
The Union of Indian in its additional affidavit has further stated that a sum of Rs.7.80 crores has been earmarked as the required expenditure for the setting up of 12 Courts and the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance has granted in-principle approval to the said allocation.
Having considered the matter we direct the Union of India to proportionately allocate the aforesaid expenditure i.e. 7.80 crores to the different States in which the Special Courts are planned to be located. This should be done forthwith.
Immediately after such allocation is made and intimated to the respective State Governments, the State Governments in consultation with the High Courts will set up the Fast Track Courts (12 in all) to ensure that the said Courts start functioning from 01.03.2018. All necessary/required notification(s) shall be issued by the concerned/respective State Government(s). The High Court(s), acting through the various trial Courts, will trace out from the case records the particular case(s) pending in the files of the respective judicial officers under the jurisdiction of the High Court(s) which are required to be dealt with by the Special Courts under the Scheme and thereafter transfer the said cases to HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE such Special Courts(s) for adjudication.
We further make it clear that what has been directed above is all very tentative at this stage and has been so done with a view to get the Court(s) operational and functional. As and when necessary changes are required to be made in the present directions or any additional directions are called for, the same will be issued, as may be required.
List the matter on 7th March, 2018 by which time the Special Courts (12 in number) will be expected to be get functional in the light of the directions aforementioned. On the said date the main issue arising in the proceedings will also be taken up."
7. The aforesaid order certainly makes it very clear that cases of Member of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly are to be transferred to Special Courts/Fast Track Courts and in the light of the order passed by the apex Court, the impugned order has been passed on 16.07.2018. In the considered opinion of this Court, as there is no Member of Parliament involved in the case or Member of Legislative Assembly is an accused, the case could not have been transferred in the manner and matter has been done. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 16.07.2018 is hereby quashed. The trial of the cases shall continue at Indore.
8. With the aforesaid, the present petitions stand disposed of.
(S.C. Sharma) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
amit
Amit
Digitally signed by Amit Kumar
DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, ou=Administration,
postalCode=452037, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
Kumar
2.5.4.20=1e374cb66013a47b49da
7377cc52b645943022e9a6a2e789
79d64b9955cd5382, cn=Amit
Kumar
Date: 2018.12.05 16:56:33 +05'30'