Allahabad High Court
Guru Charan Rawat vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 11 July, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2028 of 2022
Applicant :- Guru Charan Rawat
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Rajeev Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA and perused the record.
2. By way of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 26.11.2018 filed in Case Crime No.183 of 2013, under Section 13(1)(E) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi as well as the summoning order dated 29.10.2018 and the order dated 2.2.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No.9, Lucknow and quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1756 of 2018, pending in the aforesaid court.
3.An FIR was lodged by the In-charge Inspector, Prevention of Corruption Unit, Jhansi under Section 13(1)(E) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act alleging that the petitioner has assets disproportionate to his known income while posted as Center Commander in the Home Guards Department. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Inspector of the Anti Corruption Department. Check period was fixed from June, 2001 to February, 2006 and for the said period, the total income from known sources was found to be Rs.4,25,256/-. Further, the petitioner had allegedly invested in properties worth Rs.32,22,852/-, which was in excess of Rs.27,97,595/- i.e. 61.8% excess of his known sources of income and had failed to produce any proof of valid source of income to justify his assets acquired during this period.
4. The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No.6373 of 2018, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10.10.2018. This Court directed that in case the petitioner appeared and surrendered before the court below within fifteen days from the date of the order and applied for bail, his prayer for bail should be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
5. After charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken, the petitioner had moved an application dated 8.3.2021 before the trial court for discharge. The trial court, however, rejected the said discharge application vide order dated 2.2.2022, which is also impugned in the present petition.
6. The trial court in a well reasoned order has sifted the evidence on record and found that from perusal of the case diary and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, prima facie, offence for disproportionate assets is made out. It has been further held that defence of the petitioner/accused cannot be considered at this stage and the same would be considered at the time of trial. The trial court did not find any ground to allow the discharge application and, therefore, the same was rejected.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has again reiterated the submissions made during the course of discharge, which got rejected by the trial court.
8. This Court is of the view that the explanation sought to be advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the assets in the hands of the accused during the check period, cannot be considered at this stage. The trial court has rightly held that looking at the evidence collected during the course of investigation and perusal of the case diary, prima facie, offence of disproportionate assets is made out against the petitioner.
9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any ground to interfere with the orders of the impugned proceedings and, therefore, the present petition is dismissed. However, the trial court should expedite the trial considering the fact the offence was registered in 2013 and almost nine years have gone by since registration of the offence and conclude the trial expeditiously as early as possible.
Order Date :- 11.7.2022
Rao/-
