Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shri Basant Kumar Singh I.F.S. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 September, 2017

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh

          1                           Cr.R. No.717/2017

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE


  Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.K. Jaiswal and
           Hon'ble Shri Justice Virender Singh


                Criminal Revision No.717/2017


                Basant Kumar Singh S/o G.S. Singh
                                    Vs.
              State of Madhya Pradesh and another

      Petitioner in person.
      Respondent through Shri Anand Soni, Special Prosecutor.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               ORDER

(Passed on 20/09/2017) PER : VIRENDER SINGH, J. :

In his second attempt, the petitioner has come before this Court for quashing of charges framed under section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in special case number 11/2017 and the charge-sheet filed on 15/03/2017 by a special police establishment (Lokayukt), Ujjain and pending before special judge, Ujjain.

2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Investigating Agency has illegally deducted some amount from his income and has illegally added some amount in his expenditure. He has demonstrated alleged illegal deductions or addition by two tables, which are as follows:-

Table - A Illegal deduction from Income (as alleged by the petitioner)

1. Deduction of expenditure Rs.11,34,868/-

2. Rental income Rs.5,14,646/-

3. Net agricultural income Rs.20,16,807/-

4. House at Dehradun Rs.4,50,000/-

5. Agreement rejected Rs.10,00,000/-

6. Income during calculation from ITR of HUF Rs.17,35,210/-

7. 40% of salary taken Rs.4,75,488/-

---------------------------

Total:Rs.73,27,019/-

============= Table - B Illegal addition in the expenses (as alleged by the petitioner)

1. Parental gold Rs.15,18,699/-

2. Value of property Rs.24,37,072/-

3. Fixed Deposit Rs.2,49,570/-

4. Living expenses Rs.10,17,760/-

5. Cost of Inventory Rs.8,97,650/-

----------------------------

Total :Rs.61,20,751/-

==============

3. Thus, according to the petitioner Rs.73,27,019/- have illegally been deducted and Rs.61,20,751/- have illegally been added. Total of both comes to the tune of Rs.1,34,47,770/-. Total disproportionate assets calculated by the police in charge- sheet is Rs.1,09,52,135/-, which means if illegitimate deductions and illegitimate additions are removed from the calculation then there will not be any disproportionate property 3 Cr.R. No.717/2017 in the possession of the petitioner.

4. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that the Investigating Agency has illegally deducted the amount of Rs.4,75,488/- from his salary of before the check period and in the check period.

5. The petitioner wants that recalculation of his income and expenses be done in the light of the facts submitted by him.

6. Earlier the petitioner had come before this Court for the same relief on the same grounds by filing M.Cr.C. No.3274/2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 12/05/2017 with the direction that:-

"On due consideration of the aforesaid, we grant liberty to the petitioner to raise all these questions before the learned Special Judge at the time of framing of charge by finding an appropriate application. In case, such an application is filed, then the same shall be decided on merit, in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned order."

7. Coincidentally, the trial Court also framed charges on the same day i.e.12/05/2017. Apposite to note here that after attending the petition before this Court, the petitioner managed to attend and to put his submission before the Trial Court on the same day. Order sheet of the Trial Court dated 12/05/2017 recorded at 01:45 and 02:45 pm reads thus :

"iqu'p&01%45 jkT; }kjk Jh eukst dqekj ikBd fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstdA vkjksih ch-ds-flag lfgr Jh 'ks[kj JhokLro vf/koDrk mifLFkrA vfHk;qDr us izdV fd;k fd og vkt lqcg ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k gLrxr ekeys ls lacaf/kr ,e-lh-vkj-lh-

uacj&3274@17 esa rdZ izLrqr dj vHkh U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gqvk gS ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk mls funsZ'k fn, x, gSA fd og vkosnu i= varxZr /kkjk&239 na-iz-la- esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k og rdZ izLrqr dj ldrk gS tks ekuuh; mPp u;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd, gS] blfy, vfHk;qDr vkjksi ds laca/k esa vfrfjDr rdZ rFkk mlds }kjk izLrqr vkosnu&i= varxZr /kkjk&239 na-iz-la- ds ifjizs{; esa vfrfjDr rdZ izLrqr djuk pkgrk gSA fuosnu Lohdkj dj izdj.k vfrfjDr rdZ izLrqfr gsrq e/;kodk'k i'pkr~ fu;r fd;k tkrk gSA iqu'p&02%45 jkT; }kjk Jh eukst dqekj ikBd fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstdA vkjksih ch-ds-flag lfgr Jh 'ks[kj JhokLro vf/koDrk mifLFkrA vfrfjDr rdZ vkjksi fojfpr fd, tkus ds laca/k esa rFkk vkosnu&i= varxZr /kkjk&239 na-iz-la- ds laca/k esa Jo.k fd, x,A bl le; fo'ks"k izdj.k dzekad&09@1+6 iqfyl yksdk;qDr fo:) }kjdk/kh'k egktu esa lqcg ls lk{kh mifLFkr gksus ds dkj.k loZizFke lk{kh ds dFku vafdr fd, tkosaxs] rnqijkar yafcr vkosnu&i= ij vkns'k ikfjr fd, tkosaxsA izdj.k vkns'k gsrq dqN nsj i'pkr~ iqu% is'k gksA

8. Albeit, the order of this Court passed in MCRC 3274/17 was not before the learned Special Judge while framing the charge, but content of the order dated 12/05/2017 of the trial court shows that the petitioner has brought into the notice and has raised all the issues which were raised before this Court in MCRC No.3274/17 and the trial court had considered and turned them down. Taking advantage of the fact that order of this Court passed in MCRC No.3274/17 was not before the trial Court, the petitioner again filed an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. along with copy of the order passed in MCRC 3274/17 raising the same issues. This second application was also dismissed by the learned Trial Court, mainly on the ground that the Court does not have power of review or to discharge 5 Cr.R. No.717/2017 the accused once the charges have been framed by the time of filing of copy of the order of this Court. Another ground for rejecting the application was that as the order of framing of charge was passed on 12/05/2017 and copy of order of this Court was filed on 23/05/2017, therefore the application was not maintainable. In precise; the learned Trial Court did not consider the contention of the petitioner on merit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court again for the same relief of discharge virtually on the same grounds. But technically the petitioner is correct in his plea that the trial Court did not address his issues on merits in compliance of directions of this Court; therefore, to set at rest the controversy finally, we allow the petition. Though we are not agree to quash the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner at this stage but we do set-aside the charges framed by the trial Court and direct it to reconsider all the issues raised by the petitioner and pass an appropriate speaking order afresh according to law.

9. With the aforementioned discussion, the petition stands partly allowed and closed hereby.

               (P.K. Jaiswal)                          (Virender Singh)
                    Judge                                    Judge
Aiyer*