Petitioners in these two petitions are accused in FIR No. 34 of 1999 and are facing trial in Challan No. 31 of 2002 for offence under section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 161 and 120-B RPC. The legality and validity of Order dated 19.2.2003 framing charge against the accused persons and putting them to trial, has been questioned in the present proceedings. Petitioner in Petition No. 56/2003 was a teacher in the Education Department and came to be adjusted in Adult Education, District Jammu on migration from Kashmir Valley during the year 1991. Subsequently, he was posted in Relief Organisation in the year 1999. Petitioner in Petition No. 46/2003 was serving as Zonal Officer in the Relief Organisation in the year 1999. They were entrusted the job of releasing ration and other relief to the migrants. One Kuldip Kapoor lodged complaint with the Vigilance Organisation alleging therein that he was getting relief and ration from the Relief Department being a migrant and the petitioners in these petitions stopped his relief and ration. Ashok Kumar Koul petitioner had demanded Rs. 10,000/- as bribe for continuing relief on behalf of petitioner Prem Bhushan Gupta. He met Prem Bhushan Gupta and settled the deal for Rs. 6000/- to be paid in two installments. He was going to pay first installment of Rs. 3000/- to Prem Bhushan Gupta and Ashok Kumar Koul. On this written complaint, FIR 34/99 was registered by the Vigilance Organisation. A trap was laid and Ashok Kumar Koul petitioner was allegedly apprehended while accepting bribe from the complainant on 24.5.1999. Other accused, Prem Bhushan Gupta was also arrested and both of them released on bail. On completion of investigation, sanction for prosecution was granted vide Government Order No. 11-GAD (Vig) of 2000 dated 2.3.2000 only for prosecution of Ashok Kumar Koul petitioner under section 5(2) P.C. Act. Consequently, charge sheet filed before Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu. On consideration of material on record, Special Judge Anti Corruption was of the view that Prem Bhushan Gupta the other accused person who is said to have demanded money, should not have been left out on the ground of administrative lapse. Accordingly, learned Special Judge Anti Corruption vide his order dated 19.2.2001 returned challan to the Vigilance Organisation for further investigation and to clarify the role of Prem Bhushan Gupta who was incharge of Zone and is said to have demanded money and on whose direction the money was paid to Ashok Kumar Koul. The file was accordingly handed over to Deputy Director (Prosecution), Vigilance Organisation for further investigation as is evident from the endorsement at the foot of the judgment. Order dated 19.2.2001 passed by the Special Judge Anti Corruption was challenged by accused Ashok Kumar before this court in 561-A proceedings by Petition No. 14/2001. Learned Single Judge of this court set aside the order vide his judgment dated 1.10. 2001 with the following observations :

" It is now settled proposition of law that while the Magistrate / Special Judge Anti Corruption has taken cognizance of the matter, he has no jurisdiction to direct further investigation. He is only having jurisdiction at this stage to hear the parties on the question of charge and discharge and pass appropriate order.

Apparently impugned order is bad and cannot be maintained. Mr. Gupta learned counsel representing the petitioner has submitted that the rights of the petitioner have been affected as he has been placed under suspension and if the impugned order is allowed to stand, the re-investigation will take some time,. He has no objection for disposal of this petition, directing the Special Judge Anti Corruption, Jammu to proceed with the trial to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of directing the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, Jammu shall hear the petitioner on the question of charge and discharge and pass appropriate orders. However

Click Here to Read the rest of this document