Decided on December 05,1986

H N Tripathi (Lt Col ) Appellant
S P C B I Respondents


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 court.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.