Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Serial No. Allegation Offence alleged Charge No.
1. Conspiracy 120B, IPC 1
2. With reference to Sugar Co-operatives :
(a) Shetkari Sahakar 165,384,420,IPC 2-4 Sakhar Karkhana
(b) Warna -do- 5-7
(c) Panjara -do- 38-40
3. (a) National Centre for Performing Arts (NCPA) 161 & 165, IPC 23-25 5(2) read with 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(b) Indian Hotel Co Ltd. 161 & 165, IPC; 41-43 5(2) read with 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

"Since some charges have already been framed by learned Trial Judge with respect to offences under ss. 161 and 165, I.P.C. and s. 5(1)(d) read with s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the ingredients of the offence under s. 165, I.P.C. have not been specifically adverted to in the main judgment and the respondent has in any event to argue before the trial Court regarding the scope as well as the ingredients of the offences under ss.161 and 165, I.P.C. On which there is not much of case law and it involves appreciation of the scheme of the relevant provisions of the I.P.C. as well as of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the respondent is willing to face trial straightaway in respect of A not only the charges already framed but also on the draft charges in so far as they involved the offences alleged under ss. 161 and 165, I.P.C. and s. 5(1)(d) read with s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the charge of conspiracy relating thereto......... "

As hearing proceeded, at one stage we were inclined to lay down generally the para-metres of the provisions of s. 165, I.P.C. Mr. Rao for the respondent while making his submissions in regard to the actual scope of the offence covered by s. 165, I.P.C. pointed out on more than one occasion that the respondent might be prejudiced in his defence if while laying down the parametres of that offence, we indicated a straightjacket formula. He also suggested that the matter should be left to be argued and the learned Trial Judge should be free to come to his conclusion in law with reference to the facts of the case about the scope and ambit of that provision that if any party was aggrieved by the decision it would still be open to be corrected in the appellate forum. Taking these submissions into consideration and on further deliberation, we are inclined to accept the view that it may not be appropriate at this stage to lay down the ambit and scope of the offence under s. 165, I.P.C. at any great length. It would be sufficient in our view to generally point out the distinction between sections 161 and 165, I.P.C. and simultaneously deal with the provisions of s. 5(1) read with s. 5(2) of the Act. But before doing so, we would briefly refer to the evidence in support of the charges which the respondent has agreed to be framed for the purpose of showing that the learned Trial Judge had prima facie taken a wrong view and it was a fit case where these charges should have also been framed.

The net result of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, is that a prima facie case has been established by the prosecution in respect of the allegations for charges under ss.l20B, 161, and 165 and 420, IPC, as also under s.5(1) read with s.5(2) of the Act. So far as the three draft charges relating to the offence punishable under s. 384, IPC, are concerned, we agree with the learned trial Judge that the prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case. Therefore, except in regard to the three draft charges under s.384, IPC, charges in respect of the remaining 19 items shall be framed. The appeal is allowed to that extent.