P.P.KAUSHIK Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of four Criminal Revision Petitions, which have been filed against the same impugned order of the Court of Shri R.L. Sharma, Addl. Sessions Judge, Solan and Sirmour Districts, Nahan dated June 18, 1985. Out of the four cases, three have been filed by Inder Vikram Singh and Kewal Ram (Cr. Revision No. 106/ 85), D.R. Awasthy (Cr.M.P (M) No. 433/85) and P.P. Kaushik (Cr. Revision No. 99/85), all three of whom are accused in the case giving rise to the impugned order of the present revision petitions. The fourth revision petition has been filed by the State of H.R, i.e. Cr. Revision No. 123/85 against that part of the order whereby the learned Court below has discharged all the accused persons for committing the offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which was the Act in force at the relevant time. However, the learned Court below has found a prima facie case against Inder Vikram Singh and Kewal Ram petitioners under Section 467/468/120 -B, I.PC. and so far as D.R. Awasthy and PP. Kaushik petitioners are concerned, the learned trial Judge has found a prima facie case under Section 467/ 468/120 -B, I.PC. as well as Section 420,1.PC. He has transferred the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan with a direction that the latter will frame charges accordingly. Hence, the present four revision petitions.

(2.) It may be mentioned here that before the learned Court below, there were as many as 18 accused out of whom, only 4 have challenged the impugned order as mentioned above. During this long lapse of time since the year 1985 when the impugned order was passed, Jasmer Singh, accused No. 7, Krishan Dutt accused No. 11, Durga Ram accused No. 16 and Lachhmi Singh accused No. 17, have passed away from this world. Therefore, in the revision filed by the State against them for a prima facie case under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, their names have been deleted.

(3.) The facts of the prosecution case as disclosed during the investigation, have been set out in detail in the impugned order. However, for facility of reference the relevant facts bear mentioning herein.