A.S. Puri vs State (Cbi)
2004 Latest Caselaw 329 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9th September, 1992, whereby the learned Judge has framed a charge under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for an offence committed under Section 165 IPC.-2-Crl.Rev.P.3/1993

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that a charge under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not have been framed in view of Section 31 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which specifically repeals Section 165 IPC and brings into play Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. In other words, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act permits the continuation of investigation, legal proceeding or remedy as may be instituted continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment as may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed. Consequently, the charge under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could not have been framed. He also draws my attention to Section 189 of the Cr.P.C. and submits that a large number of statements and documents that have been procured are statements made before a Sergent of the police in U.K. cannot be made use of as material for prosecution unless provisions of Section 189 Cr.P.C. have been complied with.

3. Counsel for the CBI on the other hand contends that it is proper and advisable that this court does not take upon itself 3-Crl.Rev.P.3/1993 the framing of charge and/or going into material to satisfy itself whether the provisions of Section 189 of the Cr.P.C. have been complied with but leave it to the trial court to reconsider the matter in view of the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

4. Having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the order under challenge as also having considered Section 31 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 as also Section 189 of the Cr.P.C., it appears to me that the trial court has not considered any of the above provisions before framing charge under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In this view of the matter, I set aside the order dated 9th September, 1992 and direct the trial court to re-consider the material placed before it in accordance with law and frame charges accordingly, if the material so justifies.

5. With this, Crl.Rev.P. 3/1993 stands disposed of.