RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. seeks quashing of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of FIR no. 253/96 dated 14. 11. 1996 recorded by the Anti- Corruption Bureau, Jodhpur in which after investigation challan has been filed against the petitioner alongwith co-accused Ramesh Purohit.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that one Sugna Ram, the then Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Patel Nagar, Tehsil Bilara made a complaint on 9. 11. 1996 to the Addl. S. P. ACD Cases, Jodhpur with the allegations that a Panchayat Bhawan has been got constructed under the famine relief scheme on a total cost of Rs. 3,20,000/- out of which the payment of Rs. 76,000/- was yet to be made and for the payment of which Shri ramesh Purohit, the then B. D. O. demanded Rs. 32,000/- as bribe i. e. 10% of the total amount of Rs. 3,20,000/ -. After verifying the satisfying about the veracity the truth of the allegations, a trap was arranged and after the successful trap a case FIR No. 253/96 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and 120-B IPC as well as against Ramesh Purohit, the then B. D. O. During the course of investigation, the petitioner Rajendra Singh moved an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur for grant of pardon. The learned Magistrate after satisfying himself about the willingness of the petitioner, recorded his confessional statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. He tendered him pardon under Section 306 Cr. P. C. land sent his statement to the learned Special Judge, A. C. D. Cases, Jodhpur in a sealed cover. But after the completion of investigation, a challan has been filed against both the accused persons ignoring the grant of pardon to the petitioner. Hence, this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C.

(3.) THIS apart, it is well settled law that where special provision is made under a special enactment for certain offence then that procedure is to be followed and not the general procedure. Thus, the general procedure of Cr. P. C. pertaining to tender of pardon will have to give way to the similar provisions provided in the Act.