Jaswinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
report as well as the affidavit of the complainant, this petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ss. 7, 13(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 173
Judgment
Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate vs. State of Punjab & anr. ....Respondent(s) through Mr.K.S.Pannu, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Sachin Kapoor, Advocate for Mr.Suvir Sheokand, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. The prayer in this petition is for quashing of F.I.R.No.36 dated
Operative part
23.11.2005 under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Mohali. The quashing of the F.I.R. has been sought primarily on the ground that an enquiry was conducted by an officer of the rank of DIG of the Vigilance Bureau and the petitioner was found innocent. In addition, the complainant is stated to have given an affidavit (Annexure P-2) to the effect that he got the petitioner implicated in a false case. There is no denial to the fact that challan has already been presented and the learned trial Court is yet to consider the question of framing of charges. Crl. Misc. No.66299-M of 2006 -2- Normally, the Court is required to frame charges, prima facie, on a consideration of the material appended with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. However, since the petitioner is relying upon some enquiry report as well as the affidavit of the complainant, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the prosecution to produce the enquiry report, if any, of the DIG of the Vigilance Bureau as also the final decision taken by the Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab in relation thereto before the Court concerned. Let all these documents including the affidavit of the complainant be taken into consideration by the learned trial Court while forming its opinion regarding framing of the charges. April 30, 2007 poonam ( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: report as well as the affidavit of the complainant, this petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — ss. 7, 13(2); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 30 Apr 2007. The bench was SURYA KANT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.