ORDER :

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1953/2014

1. This criminal misc. petition is preferred against the order dated 08.07.2014 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Judge’) in FR No. 23/2013 in FIR No. 220/2010, Police Station Churu, CPS Jaipur for the offences under Sections 13(1)(D) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, whereby, the learned Judge has directed the investigating agency for further investigation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant respondent No.2 filed a complaint stating therein that on 22.06.2007 a committee was constituted by the District Collector as ex-officio Chairman of Sainik Basti, Churu for allotment of certain plots in Sainik Basti, Churu. At that time the petitioner was holding the post of District Collector, Churu and the said committee was comprising of Additional Collector, Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsildar, Chairman District Ex-soldiers Association and District Sainik Welfare Officer. In this regard the Collector has framed guidelines for allotment of plots/lands for commercial purpose and their conversion & regularization.

3. It is alleged that the Collector was final authority for allotment of plots. In the guidelines it is provided that 75% plots should be allotted to Ex-soldiers, widows of soldiers, gallantry award holders and the soldiers who have participated in national & state level tournaments and rest 25% plots should be allotted to State & Central Government employees and citizens, who have been honoured at the state level. The rats of plots were also prescribed @ Rs.340 per sq. mtr. for officer level, Rs.240/-per sq. mtr. for junior commissioned officers and Rs.140/-per sq. mtr. for non commissioned and low paid employees. It is further alleged that when the petitioner was holding the post of Collector, Churu cum Chairman, Sainik Basti, in utter violation of the guidelines, plots have been allotted.

4. On the said complaint, a preliminary inquiry was conducted and the Preliminary Inquiry Officer verified the contents of the allegation and thereafter an FIR was instituted against the present petitioner and other co-accused. On the aforesaid allegations, the Anti Corruption Bureau carried out the investigation and after investigation negative final report was submitted before the learned trial Judge and vide order dated 25.10.2013 the learned Judge sent the matter for re-investigation to the A.C.B.

5. Pursuant to the order dated 25.10.2013 the matter was re-investigated and again final report, exonerating the present petitioner, was submitted before the learned trial Judge.

6. Learned trial Judge on the protest petition filed by respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 08.07.2014, which is under challenge in this criminal misc. petition.

7. It is contended that the learned trial Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction and passed the order impugned against the well settled principles of law. The direction issued to the investigating agency in a particular manner or to collect a particular evidence is against the proposition of settled law. It is also contended that in the present matter detailed investigation was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau and a final report stating that no offence is made out against the present petitioner was submitted before the learned trial court.

8. It is further contended that after passing the order by the learned trial court on 25.10.2013 again the investigation was carried out and second negative final report was submitted before the learned trial Judge. It is contended that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate that prima facie no offence is made out against the present petitioner. A perusal of the FIR indicates that the FIR was lodged just to harass & humiliate the present petitioner. It is contended that the guidelines were framed by the petitioner and the same were fol