M.Wahajuddin, J. - (1.) By his order dated 23-8- 1980 Sri Ram Swarup, the then III Additional Sessions Special Judge, Etawah, has discharged the opposite party accused person, Haripal Singh. The State has prayed that the accused person be convicted and sentenced, maintaining that the impugned order is illegal, improper and perverse. Two revisions have been prefered by Braj Krishna Tandon. In revision No. 1464 of 1980 the prayer is that the order dated 16-6-1980 passed by Sri D. S. Ram, the then Special Judge be set aside and the court be asked to direct the Investigating Officer to submit charge-sheet, after obtaining the necessary sanction, in the second Revision No. 1465 of 1980 the prayer is that the order dated 23-8-1980 (supra) be set aside (and) the special Judge be directed to take cognizance on the basis of the charge-sheet. It is also prayed that this Court may pass further orders as it deems fit.
(2.) No one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party, Harpal Singh. I have heard all the aforesaid three revisions in his absence. On a perusal of the judgment dated 23-8-1980 of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah, I find that this case has a checkered history and a number of illegalities and irregularities have been committed. It would appear that Brai Krishna Tandon preferred an application before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, Kanpur, alleging that the opposite party accused Harpal Singh, before whom certain Sales Tax matters concerning the firm of which Sri B. K. Tandon happened to be a partner were pending, demanded a huge amount as bribe and ultimately the matter has been settled for Rs. 500/-. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance, Kanpur, who investigated the case of alleged passing of bribe submitted a final report on 5-5-1979 to the court, laying down three conclusions quoted in the judgment of the Additional Special Judge. The then Special Judge, Etawah, passed an order dated 10-5-1979 observing that he has seen the report of the Public Prosecutor and has gone through the record and agrees with the Public Prosecutor that there is no justification for accepting the final report. Haripal Singh accused moved a writ petition before the High Court, but it did not stay the proceedings before the lower court. Later, on 12-8-1978, the accused person moved an application registered as Misc. Case before the Special Judge for recalling and reviewing the earlier order dated 10-5-1979 or for passing further orders. Another application was also moved on 8-12-1979 for review of the earlier order and a further application was moved for expediting the disposal of the application. The then Special Judge disposed of the matter by an order dated 16-3-1980 holding that the earlier order refusing to accept the final report was correct and the case shall proceed and fixed 20-6-1980, for recording the statement of the accused person and for framing the charge.
(3.) Later, the case was transferred to the Special Judge, Sri Ram Swarup. Sri Ram Swarup in paragraph 17 of his judgment observed that any cognizance could not be taken on the basis of the final report. He further referred to the conclusions arrived at by the Investigating Officer. He has then referred to the evidence in proof. The Special Judge observed that the immediate motive for acceptance of oribe "appears to be remote. The court also observed that as the case diary did not disclose any prima facie case, the investigating agency did not obtain any sanction. It has also observed that such sanction is necessary. I am purposely refraining from discussing the evidence on merits because that may embarrass the Special Judge to take his independent view in the matter. It would suffice to observe that the Sessions Judge has himself referred to some pieces of evidence as circumstances, although at the same time observing that such circumstantial evidence can be explained away in some other manner.;