Paramjit Singh Patwalia, J. - (1.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 155 days in filing the criminal revision petition is condoned. The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 28.2.2012 whereby charge has been framed against the petitioner under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B IPC and Sections 212, 216 IPC. Brief facts of the case are that FIR No. 22 dated 29.8.2002 under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B IPC was registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, F.S.I., Mohali against the petitioner. The petitioner remained absconded for 7 years. However, he surrendered before the Ilaqa Magistrate on 17.10.2011 and was remanded for one day police remand. During the interrogation the petitioner submitted that major part of his income accrued as interest, loan, gifts and the shares sold by his daughter, istridhan of his wife and sale of gold by her and salary of his son were not included in his income. Furthermore, 1/3rd share of the purchase amount of shop contributed by Balbir Kaur, mother of the petitioner, was also included in his expenditure and his expenditure and income were thus, wrongly assessed to be disproportionate to known sources of income of the petitioner. However, in the subsequent proceedings after joining the investigation, these sources were revealed as a result of which supplementary statement under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was submitted.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the documents and the statements forming basis of report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. are required to be taken into consideration while framing charges in view of the law laid down in Rama Choudhary v. State of Bihar. : 2009 (2) RCR (Crl.) 571 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if the police has submitted a challan after investigation in Court, still the police can further investigate the matter but police has no right to re -investigate the case. The contention of learned counsel is that present is a case of further investigation and not fresh or re -investigation, therefore, in view of aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
(2.) I have considered the contentions of Learned Counsel for the petitioner. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the further investigation can be carried out by the police either at its own or after seeking permission from the court. In the present case, FIR was registered in the year 2002; challan was presented on 24.8.2004 after thorough investigation; the petitioner evaded the process of law and has surrendered only on 17.10.2011 when the present Government headed by Shri Parkash Singh Badal came into power. At earlier point of time, the petitioner was OSD with Shri Badal and relating to that period, the case of disproportionate assets has been registered against the petitioner. It would be pertinent to mention here that the entire investigation carried out for more than two years ranging from 2002 to 2004 has been wiped out in report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. submitted now as the petitioner was interrogated and joined investigation only for one day, apparently, may be under the pressure of the government as at present also the government is being headed by the then Chief Minister, Shri Parkash Singh Badal, with whom the petitioner was OSD at the relevant time. With regard to the documents photostat copies of which have been placed on the record of supplementary challan submitted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., the court has come to a conclusion that these documents cannot be treated as a gospel truth at this stage in order to give benefit of discharge to the accused. Accused is not entitled to take shelter under Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the time of charge. Ipse dixit of the police is not binding on the trial court. Even otherwise, at the time of framing of charge, the court is not supposed to minutely examine the documents and their veracity. In State of Orissa v. Debender S. Pandhi., 2005 (1) RCR (Crl.) 279 it has been specifically laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that at the time of framing of charge, the accused has not right to produce any material and accused cannot seek the aid of Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the time of framing of charge. If at all the police is to further investigate the matter, then generally permission of the court is required. The court has come to a conclusion that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner for framing charge and he cannot be discharged merely on the ground of report submitted under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.;