N.K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) This is a criminal revision against the order dated 28.5.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 7 of 1995, State v. Atiq Ahmad and others , withdrawing the order dated 9.8.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Lucknow taking cognizance against the opposite parties and 55 others summoning them as accused under sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 323, 365, 368, 427, 342, 452, 353, 109, 467, 468, 471, 420, 387 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. In the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow has recorded a finding that no case is made out against the opposite parties either under section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act or read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and since it was a joint charge-sheet under the offences under the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Law Amendment Act and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the learned Sessions Judge being Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act has refused to take cognizance under the Prevention of Corruption Act and has returned the charge-sheet for presentation to the Magistrate for taking cognizance under the other offences under Indian Penal Code and Criminal Law Amendment Act. This order of the learned Sessions Judge has been challenged in this revision.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that in the State of U.P. there was a Government of Samajwadi Party headed by Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, the opposite party No. I and the Bahujan Samaj Party jointly. On 1.6.1995 Ms. Mayawati, the leader of Bhaujan Samaj Party had decided to withdraw the support from Samajwadi Party to form its own Government with the support of Bhartiya Janta Party. The Government headed by Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav has become in minority as a result of withdrawal of its support by Bahujan Samaj Party. It is alleged that on 1.6.1995 at about 7 P.M., the opposite party No. 1 Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav called the accused opposite party No. 6 Raj Bahadur to form a separate group of M.L.As. and the opposite party No. 1 Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav had told that it would be his job to arrange and make available M.L.As. for this purpose, no matter what amount had to be spent for this purpose. It is further alleged that it was told to Shri Raj Bahadur that if the M.L.As. did not agree to take the money, he would get them lifted forcibly. It was also decided in the said meeting that the messages be sent to faithful supporters in various districts to reach to Samajwadi Party's office at Lucknow on 2.6.1995 and for this purpose telephonic messages were also sent to various places. It is alleged that on 2.6.1995 in pursuance of the common object 300-400 Samajwadi Party M.L.As., workers and office bearers and others under the leadership of co-accused Rakesh Singh Rana and Umakant Yadav and others constituted an unlawful assembly at State Guest House where Ms. Mayawati was staying occupying Suit Nos. 1 and 2. The accused persons unlawfully proceeded towards Suit Nos. 1 and 2 by using criminal force and abducted Bahujan Samaj Party's M.L.As. Akshaybar Bharti, Samai Ram, Ram Achal Rajbhar, Rajendra Kumar and Jagar Nath Chaudhary. These five abducted M.L.As. were taken to 5, Vikramditya Marg, the residence of opposite party No. 1 and they were produced before him who along with other accused and opposite parties asked the abducted M.L.As. to defect in consideration of money offered to them and when they did not agree, they were threatened with their lives. It is alleged that the opposite parties Dhani Ram Verma and Raj Bahadur at that time in the presence of other opposite parties, etc. forced these abducted M.L.As. to sign a document and still 3-4 M.L.As. were short. On this opposite party No. 1 Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav spoke to someone on telephone as to what are they doing, 3-4 M.L.As. were still short. It is further alleged that the document on which the signature of five abducted M.L.As. were forcibly obtained was in the form of a letter addressed to opposite party Dhani Ram Verma and it was to the effect that 25 M.L.As. belonging to Bahujan Samaj Party had formed a separate group. On this letter four other M.L.As. had signed.
(3.) The letters/informations/representations sent to His Excellency the Governor and others with regard to this incident were registered as first information reports as and when they reached to the police. The Station House Officer, Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow had also got registered F.I.R. Ultimately, the matter was referred to C.B.C.I.D. and after investigation the charge-sheet was filed in the Court. of Sessions Judge, Lucknow against the opposite parties under sections 120-B, 467, 468, 471; 420 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code and section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The then Sessions Judge/Special Judge Shri J.C. Mishra took the cognizance against the opposite parties and others. The opposite parties and others filed Criminal Revision Nos. 202 of 1995, 235 of 1995 and Criminal Misc. Case No. 468 of 1995 against the order dated 9.8.1995 by which the Special Judge had taken cognizance. The aforesaid criminal revisions and criminal misc. case were decided by this Court on 29.9.1995 with the direction that the revisionist/ petitioner may raise the relevant objection in regard to jurisdiction before the learned Sessions Judge within three weeks with effect from 29.9.1995. The opposite parties and other accused persons filed objections before the learned Sessions Judge contending therein that: (i) Cognizance of the case by the Court of Sessions /Special Judge was wholly illegal in respect of those 55 accused against whom charge-sheet for the offences other than the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act was filed as the offences were cognizable by the Magistrate and the Court of Sessions could proceed only in the committal of the case to the Court of Sessions and also no case under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act was made out against them. (ii) The charge-sheet did not make out or disclose with regard to the allegations of obtaining of any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage to make out the offence under section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. (iii) The allegation that the opposite parties made a preparation to engineer a defection in a political party was not an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act. The opposite parties Uma Kant Yadav, Mohd. Arshad Khan, Sangram Singh, Shiv Pal Singh Yadav and Dr. Mohsin Khan were not public servants and the cognizance of any offence under the Provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act could not be taken against any of them. The impleadment of the opposite party No. 1 as accused in this case was fabricated and was with ulterior political design and to malign him.;