- (1.) V. N. Mehrotra, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the entire proceedings along with the charge framed in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1990 - State v. Mahesh Chandra, pending in the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption (E), Dehradun.
(2.) THE facts of the case, as appear from the material on record, are that the present applicant Mahesh Chandra posted as Chief Engineer, National Hydro-Electric Project Corporation, Tanakpur, district Nainital (U. P. ). Some information was allegedly received by the C. B. I, to the effect that the petitioner was a corrupt officer and he, by corrupt and illegal means or by otherwise abusing his official position as a public servant, had acquired movable assets in his own name and in the name of this family members dependent upon him disproportionate to known sources of his income. A case was registered and after investigation charge sheet was submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police C. B. I. New Delhi against the applicant. It was asserted that the accused had, while functioning as the Superintending Engineer and subsequently as the Chief Engineer at different places, mentioned in the charge sheet during the period from 17-4-1980 to 6-4-1987, committed the offence of criminal mis conduct as he, on 6-4-1987, was found in possession or assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs. 2,23,021. 64. It was asserted that the accused thus committed the offence punishable under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, U. P. (East), Dehradun framed charge on 17-1-1992 against the accused in respect of the above offence. The present petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings including the charge framed by the Special Judge. The contention by the petitioner is that the material which has been collected by the C. B. I. does not disclose the commission of any offence. It is further contended that the investigating agency was not justified in taking an arbitrary check period in order to come to the conclusion that the applicant was in possessions of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is further contended that the assets, mentioned by the investigating agency include Indira Vikash Patras valued at Rs. 2,00,000/ -. The same did not belong to the petitioner but belong to his son Rajiv Sharma, who was major and was carrying on his own business. It is contended that it was wrong to take into account these Indra Vikash Patras and other assets held by the major son of the petitioner. It is lastly contended that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was repealed by Section 30 of the Prevention of Corruption, 1988, hence the Special Judge concerned could not have framed charge under Section 5 (1) (e) of the Preven tion of Corruption Act, 1947 against the petitioner and thus the charge framed under the repealed Act was invalid.
(3.) THE petitioner has filed his affidavits along with copies of documents in support of his assertions. Counter affidavit along with annexures has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, who is representing the C. B. I. and have further heard the learned A. G. A. , representing the State of U. P.;