The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 219 and 220 of Cr. P.C. in relation to the issuance of multiple driving licenses and the scope of revisional Court's powers under Section 397 and High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C.

1. This petition has been moved under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. for setting aside the order dated 26th September, 2006 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon in the Crl. Revision No. 26 of 2005 against the order dated 15th February, 2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon framing the charges against the petitioner in case FIR No. 26 dated 31st October, 2001 regis-tered under Sections 218, 420, 467 and 468 of IPC at Police Station District Vigilance Bureau Gurgaon, Haryana.

2. The facts in brief are that on 3rd March, 1997, the petitioner had issued 177 driving licenses without following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and Rules framed therein. These licenses were entered in the official register at Serial No. 1046 to 1222 and license fee of Rs. 13,210/- was deposited in the State Bank of India, Ferozpur Jhirka, Gurgaon in the Head-0041 dated 5th March, 1997. On 16th November, 2000, the Director State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana Chandigarh submitted his enquiry report vide No," 16697 dated 16th November, 2000 to the Chief Secretary, Haryana exonerating the allegations levelled against him and stated that on the basis of relevant record and statement recorded during the course of enquiry, it was found that the concerned 177 driving licenses were issued to all the applicants, who were residents of Sub-Division Ferozepur Jhirka, Gurgaon and that the petitioner was fully competent to issue driving licenses during his period of posting because all the applicants were original resi-dents of the aforesaid area. On 31st October, 2001, FIR No. 26 of 2001 was registered against the petitioner and other co-accused under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code read with 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act) by Vigilance Bureau Gurgaon, Haryana. On 15th April, 2002, the charge-sheet was filed under the aforementioned Sections. The learned Special Judge, Gurgaon vide his order dated 12th December, 2002, discharged the petitioner and other co-accused under Section 13(l)(d) of the Act and ordered to put the case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon for trial in accordance with law after framing the formal charge under the aforesaid Sections of IPC. This Court vide order dated 3rd May, 2003 rendered in Crl. Revision No. 675 of 2003 observed that the abovementioned order of the learned Special Judge for framing of charges under specific Sections of IPC is without jurisdiction and is also grossly prejudicial to the petitioner and others and therefore, the petitioner and others, on appearance before the learned CJM shall be at liberty to argue that no charge has been made out against them and the Court shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 238, 239 and 240 of the Cr, P.C. Vide order dated 15th February. 2005 the learned CJM charged the petitioner under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468 of IPC and discharged under Sections 471 and 120-B of IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide his order dated 26th September, 2006 passed in Criminal Revision No. 26 of 2005 filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of the learned CJM held that the issuance of every license was a separate offence and by virtue of Section 219 of Cr. P.C., no other option is left with this Court except to remit the case back to the learned CJM, Gurgaon with direction to direct the prosecution agency to submit different charge-sheet under Section 173 of Cr. P.C. Joining 3 offences in one charge-sheet. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred while holding that the issuance of every licence was a separate offence and by virtue of Section 219 of Cr. P.C.,joint charges can be framed only for three offences of the same kind within one year. He passed this order ignoring the applicability of Section 220 of the Cr. P.C. He had ignored the peculiar fact that there is a want of sanction