Back
2015 Supreme(Raj) 638
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Jaipur Bench
Dr. Kajod Mal Meena Vs. State of Raj. (Agarwal, J.)
HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL, J.
Kajod Mal Meena (Dr.)
Versus
State of Rajasthan
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2755 of 2015, decided on 28.05.2015
Amit Dadhich, for Petitioner;
R.R. Gurjar, Public Prosecutor for State.
Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Secs. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2), 13(1)(d) — Allegation of filing second F.I.R./charge sheet for the same offence — Petitioner was caught red handed taking bribe in a trap proceedings — F.I.R. was registered u/S. 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the Act — Meanwhile on a source information of having assets disproportionate to his known source of income, a separate FIR u/S. 13(1)(e) r/w Sec. 13(2) was registered on the basis of evidence — Whether barred by law? — Held — The offences for which the two F.I.R.s have been registered, are distinct and separate offences — Merely because during the course of enquiry in earlier F.I.R., the house of petitioner was also searched, it cannot be said that it is the part and parcel of the same transaction — Second F.I.R. is not legally barred as the offence u/S. 13(1)(e) of the Act was neither investigated nor charge sheet was filed for the said offence in respect of the earlier F.I.R.
Cr. Misc. petition dismissed. (Paras 6 to 8)
Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 13¼1½¼Mh½ lifBr /kkjk 13¼2½] 13¼1½¼Mh½ & mlh vijk/k ds fy, f}rh; ,Q-vkbZ-vkj-@vkjksi i= nk;j djus dk vfHkdFku & Vªsi dk;Zokgh esa izkFkhZ fj'or ysrs gq, jaxs gkFkksa idM+k x;k & vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13¼1½¼Mh½ lifBr /kkjk 13¼2½ ds rgr ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- iaftd`r dh xbZ & bl nkSjku vk; ds Kkr L=ksr ds vuuqikfrd lEifr j[kus dh fdlh L=ksr lwpuk ij /kkjk 13¼1½¼b½ lifBr /kkjk 13¼2½ ds rgr ,d i`Fkd ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- lk{; ds vk/kkj ij iaftd`r dh & D;k fof/k ls oftZr gS\ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ftu vijk/kksa ds fy, ;s nks ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- iaftd`r dh xbZ gS] os fHkUu fHkUu vkSj vyx vyx gS & ek= blfy, fd igys okyh ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- esa tkap ds nkSjku izkFkhZ ds ?kj dh Hkh ryk'kh yh xbZ Fkh] ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ;g mlh laO;ogkj dk fgLlk vkSj vax gS & f}rh; ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- oS/kkfud :i ls oftZr ugha gS D;ksafd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13¼1½¼b½ ds rgr vijk/k dk u rks vUos"k.k fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj u gh mDr vijk/k gsrq iwoZorhZ ,Q-vkbZ-vkj-esa vkjksi i= gh nk;j fd;k x;kA ¼in la[;k 6 ls 8½
QkStnkjh fofo/k ;kfpdk [kkfjt dhA
2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that a written report came to be lodged against the petitioner on 4.6.2005 by the complainant-Shri Narayan Singh regarding illegal demand of bribe and after verification of the same, trap proceedings were led and the petitioner was caught red-handed while obtaining Rs. 10,000/- as gratification from the complainant. As a result of the proceedings so conducted, FIR No. 121/2005 came to be registered for the offence under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act against the petitioner and after usual investigation charge-sheet was filed and the petitioner is facing trial for the same. It is to be noted that during the course of trap proceedings in the above case, the officers of ACD received a source information to the effect that the petitioner is in possession of assets which are disproportionate to his known source of income. On the basis of said information, the residential house of the petitioner situated at Bundi was searched, but on the basis of the search so carried out, offence under Section 13(1)(e) was neither included in the aforesaid FIR nor charge-sheet was filed for the same. During the course of investigation of FIR No. 121/2005, further search was carried out and more evidence, oral and documentary, was collected and a separate FIR No. 165/2005 for offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act was registered and as a result of investigation, separate charge-sheet was filed. It is this second FIR and the charge-sheet and proceedings arising thereunder which are the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there cannot be two or more FIRs registered in relation to the same occurrence or different events or incidents, two or more, but forming part of the same transaction. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case, two events or incidents occurred which are part of the same transaction. In the first incident/event, the petitioner was caught red-handed while accepting bribe, whereas in the course of the same transaction, the officers of ACD went ahead to search house of the petitioner and on search being made, according to ACD, it was found that the petitioner has in his possession assets which are disproportionate to his known source of income. It was further submitted that during the course of inquiry of the first FIR also, evidence regarding assets of the petitioner was collected and it has also been made part of the charge-sheet of the earlier FIR.
4. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that two incidents/occurrences are district and separate involving distinct and independent offences punishable under different provisions of the Act and they cannot be said to be part and parcel of the same transaction merely by the reason that during the course of the trap proceedings, on the basis of a source information, the ACD took further steps to make search of house of the petitioner.
5. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the materi
