H N TRIPATHI (LT COL ) Vs. S P C B I
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
H N Tripathi (Lt Col )
S P C B I
Click here to view full judgement.
PER BHAT.J. -
(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Kashmir Province, Srinagar dated 18 10.1978 where
by he has over ruled the objection of petitioner No; 1 and assumed the
jurisdiction to try the case under section 5(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act read with section 120 -B RPC, S. 109 RPC and sec. 5(1)(d)
of Prevention of Corruption Act.
(2.) THE petitioners are said to be accused before the Special Judge Anti Corruption, Srinagar and charges of corruption and conspiracy are
levelled against them. It is contended by Mr. S.L. Koul appearing for the
petitioners that charge against petitioner No. 1 cannot be framed by the
Special Judge Anti -Corruption, hereinafter called the Ëœtrial courtâ„¢
nor can the trial be held against petitioner No. 1 because he is serving
in armed forces and is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Special
Judge Anti Corruption nor can he be tried under the provisions of J&K
Prevention of Corruption Act of 2006. Petitioner No. 2 also is
non -resident of the State and he also is said to be not amenable to the
jurisdiction of the trial court. Other petitioners though residents of
the state are said to be accused by force of section 120 -B RPC,
therefore, unless the main offence is triable, offence of conspiracy
cannot be tried against them, because it is not an independent offence.
They are said to have conspired with other petitioners in the commission
of offence punishable under the provisions of Corruption Act of 2006,
their trial along with other petitioners cannot be held against them also.
(3.) FOR the decision of this revision petition, it is necessary to give a brief resume of the facts.
Petitioner No. 1 is Lt. Col. During his tenure in October, 1972 as Commandant Hqrs. 133 Works Engineer, MES he had in collusion with Sh.
O.N. Soodh cancelled the enquiry regarding tenders without any
justification and issued a revised tender and in the said revised tender
he is said to have included firm M/s B. Shakula and Co. and a blank
quotation letter was given to the firmâ„¢s representative, Shri Baldev
Raj who filled up the same with his own hand and in the revised tender
name of one of the tenderer M/s Srinagar Hardware Stores was dropped
without any reason and in its place new firm represented by Shri Baldev
Raj was included which was not even on the approved list of suppliers. It
was further said that benefit was given to M/s Indo Steel Traders who
were represented by Shri Inderjeet Agarwal, petitioner No. 4, by corrupt
and illegal means and by abusing their authority as public servants
pecuniary advantage to the tune of thousands was given to the petitioners
3 and 4 and loss was aused to the Government or some gain was obtained by petitioners 1 and 2 which was held to be punishable under the aforesaid
sections under which challan against them is presented. C.B.I, had
conducted the investigation and after obtaining the sanction against
petitioner No. 1 who was serving with the Union of India, in the defence
forces, charge sheet) against him and others was placed before the trial
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.