- (1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P. C.), the petitioner has chal lenged the impugned order dated 18-4-2000 passed by Special Magistrate (C. B. I.), Dehradun in CBI Case No. 248 of 1999 and order dated 12-11-2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 73 of 2000 whereby the revision against order of the Magistrate is dismissed.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the First Information Report (copy Annexure-1 to the affidavit) is lodged on 3-4-1998 with Central Bureau of Inves tigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI ). The allegations against the petitioner, Avnish Jain were that he presented a Bank draft for encashment of Rs. 1,13,133/- introducing himself as J. L. Agarwal. The Senior Manager of Cen tral Bank of India, Astley Hall, Dehradun made a report against the pe titioner, Avnish Jain and some other of ficials of Punjab National Bank in re spect of offences punishable under Sec tions 120b, read with 420,467,468,471 and 511 I. PC. , and relating to offence under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation, CBI submitted charge sheet (Annexure-2) on 4-10-1998. The Magistrate concerned on 19- 11 -1998 sent the charge sheet to the Spe cial Judge, CBI for taking cognizance. However, the Special Judge, CBI on /-12-1998 returned the charge sheet to the court of Magistrate for trial of the ac cused. The Magistrate instead of pro ceeding with the trial, vide its order dated 12-1-1999 (copy Annexure-6 to the affidavit) returned the charge sheet to CBI for presenting the same before the competent court having jurisdiction. Thereafter, fresh charge sheet dated 1/-9-1999 (Annexure-7) was filed by CBI again in the same court of Judicial Mag istrate having jurisdiction in respect of CBI cases at Dehradun. Taking the cog nizance on the charge sheet the Magis trate issued summons to the accused (present petitioner), who raised Prelimi-nary objection on 4-4-2000 (Annexure-8) challenging the cognizance on the ground that charge sheet has earlier been returned by the same court. After hear ing the parties, the Magistrate vide its order dated 18-4-2000 (Annexure-9) re jected the objections of the accused. On this, accused Avnish Jain preferred Criminal Revision No. 73 of 2000 before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun. Said court also, after hearing the parties, dis missed the revision vide its order dated 12-11- 2001 (Annexure-10), hence this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that once the charge sheet is re turned by the Magistrate the Investigat ing Agency had no power to submit fresh charge sheet, nor the Magistrate had power to take cognizance on fresh charge sheet. On close scrutiny of papers on record, this court finds that entire con fusion has arisen due to the reasons that the First Information Report was regis tered not only in respect of offences pun ishable under Sections 120-B, read with 420,467,468,471 and 511 I. P. C. but also in respect of offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (l) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It reveals from the papers on record that the Magistrate was earlier under impres sion that he has no power to take cog nizance on the report submitted by CBI in respect of an offence punishable un der Section of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is apparent from the charge sheet filed by CBI that though the First Information Report was regis tered also in respect of offence punish able under Section of Prevention of Cor ruption Act, 1988, but charge sheet was filed for trial only in respect of offences punishable under Sections of Indian Penal Code, 1860, which were triable by the Magistrate. In such circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any provision of law, un der which the CBI was barred from sub mitting fresh charge sheet in respect of same offence. Had there been discharge of the. accused or acquittal of accused on the charge sheet submitted earlier, it could have been considered whether the Magistrate was competent to take cog nizance on fresh charge sheet or not, but that is not case here. Rather, while returning the earlier charge sheet the Magistrate himself makes it clear that the charge sheet may be filed before the competent court. As such, in the above circumstances, taking cognizance on the subsequent charge sheet (Annexure-7) cannot be said to be erroneous in law.
(3.) FOR the reasons as discussed above, the petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. .;