JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner to seek quashing of the order of charge dated 04.09.2008 and the charge framing order dated 17.10.2008 passed by Sh. V.K. Maheshwari, Special Judge, Delhi in C.C. No.54/2002 at RC7(A)/2000/DLI/CBI/ACB/ND. The petitioner is one of the co-accused and is allegedly involved in the issuance of more than one TSR permit against one old condemned TSR in violation of the prescribed rules. The background relevant for present case may first be noted.

2. The Supreme Court, in writ petition No.13029/1985 (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India) vide order dated 16.12.1997 had directed that no fresh permit would be granted in respect of auto rickshaw (TSR), except by way of replacement of an existing working TSR with a new one. This was done with a view to reduce pollution levels in Delhi. Trading in permits was also not allowed by the Supreme Court. As a result of the aforesaid direction, Secretary (STA) issued a detailed order dated 02.01.1998 to the concerned officials including Motor Licensing Officer (AR), Burari prescribing procedures for maintenance of accounts of cancellation/registration of TSRs, monthly statement of TSR registrations cancelled or renewed, and format for "Certificate of Cancellation of Registration". Consequently, the Motor Licensing Officer (MLO), Burari issued a detailed order prescribing the procedure to be adopted for replacement of old TSRs with new ones.

3. A dealer could sell one TSR against one LOI as issued by the transport authority. Holder of such LOI had the option of purchasing a TSR from any authorized dealer. There were three authorized dealers at that relevant time in Delhi. Dealers had no say in the issuance of LOI. Whenever a customer brought with him LOI, all that the dealer was supposed to do was to receive the amount of TSR and sell the same by delivering the respective TSR, while retaining a photocopy of LOI for the sake of his own records. For registration of such TSR with the transport authority, the purchaser was required to produce the dealers sale invoice, Form No.20, Form No.21, insurance of the vehicle and the permit. After scrutinizing and verifying all these documents, officials of the transport authority [the MLO (AR)] would register the vehicle.

4. On certain information received by officials of National Information Centre (for short NIC), investigation was carried out which revealed that 1157 auto rickshaws had multiple registration as on 17.06.1999 i.e. it was a case where two or more than two new TSRs were given permit against one old TSR permit. A vigilance team of the transport authority headed by their Deputy Director (Vig.) visited the Burari Transport Authority and were able to locate 150 such files just by physical search. It was also found that the files were grossly incomplete and were not containing the necessary documents.

5. FIR No.34/99 dated 15.09.1999 was registered at the instance of ACB, Government of NCT of Delhi. A total of only approx. 350 files could be located. The rest of the files which were supposed to be available at the office of MLO (AR) Burari, were incomplete and irregularities in registrations of several TSRs were clearly made out. It was found that files/documents were fabricated to justify the existence of additional old auto rickshaws, so as to cover up the said crime.

6. The investigation revealed 10 specific cases of multiple registration during the year 1998 & 1999 (details whereof are found in the charge sheet) where, inter alia, Shri Shyam Sunder Dandona, owner of Pal Auto Deals, Paharganj provided new TSR to the prospective buyers as sub dealer and most of the time he only arranged the old TSR or its papers from the market and got the new TSR registered either themselves or through, mostly, Shri Ashok Khyrana, a tout working in the Transport Authority.

7. Shri Shyam Sunder Dandona got finance a