The main legal point established in the judgment is that the investigating officer's competence and the validity of the order framing charges were upheld based on the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.

R.C. Mishra, J.

1. These petitions are interrelated, as arisen from the same proceedings pending as Special Case No. 8/06 before Special Judge [under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 1988 Act'), for CBI cases], Bhopal.

2. MCrC No. 3187/2008 is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), for having the order-dated 22.09.2007, rejecting the objection as to competence of M.V. Surti, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (CBI), Bhopal to investigate into the matter as well as the petitioners' prayer for taking into consideration the documents furnished by them at the stage of framing of charge nullified and also for quashing the charge-sheet as against the petitioner namely Ashok Kumar, son of Sheel Chand Jain [for brevity 'Ashok(S)'], his wife Sunita Jain and brother Rajeev Jain.

3. The revision registered as Criminal Revision No. 554/2007 is directed against a common order-dated 17.02.2007 passed by the Special Judge, rejecting the applications, under Section 91 of the Code, moved by the revisionists as well as by co-accused Nanulal Ahirwar and R.C. Parashar.

4. The revision numbered as Criminal Revision No. 836/2008 has been preferred against the order-dated 18.03.2008 whereby charges of the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with S.13(2) read with 201 of the IPC and 120B read with 201, 465 and 471 of the IPC were framed against the revisionist namely Ashok Kumar Jain, son of Babulal Jain [hereinafter referred to as 'Ashok(B)'], an Income-Tax Practitioner.

5. The subject-matter of Criminal Revision No. 1098/2008 is the order-dated 15.02.2008 whereby not only the application filed by Ashok(S), Sunita, Rajeev and R.C. Parashar for recalling the order-dated 22.09.2007 was rejected but it was also concluded that a prima facie case was made out against Ashok(S) to justify framing of charges of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with 465 and 471 of the IPC and Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Act whereas the other accused were liable to be charged with the offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with 465, 471 and 201 of the IPC and Section 109 read with 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Act.

6. Background facts may be summed up thus-

(1) During the check period from 01.04.1999 to 20.05.2004, Ashok(S) had remained posted as Branch Manager of Vidisha Branch and the Bhopal City Branch Office IV of the United India Insurance Company Limited.

(2) On 20.05.2004, upon complaint made by one Mohd. Sajid, a trap was arranged by M. V. Surti, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (CBI) to apprehend Ashok(S) red-handed while accepting bribe of Rs. 20,000/-. The trap proceedings were organized. He also conducted search in Ashok(S)'s residence i.e. MIG-4 located in New BDA Complex, Bhopal and recorded the details of the properties seized in a list (Annexure 'P-1').

(3) On 02.05.2005, M.V. Surti registered yet another case against Ashok(S) in respect of offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Act on the ground that during the check period, he had acquired properties and pecuniary resources in his name and also in the name of his family members disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs. 11,43,071/-. Investigation further revealed that explanations furnished by Ashok(S) with regard to various sources of income were found to be false or unacceptable. To illustrate,-

(a) The plea that an amount of Rs. 2,86,000/- was received by Sunita Jain as an advance towards consideration under a sale agreement from Umed Singh Raghuwanshi, the proposed purchaser of a plot located in Behlot Road, Ganjbasoda, was unacceptable due to the following reasons-

(i) He had not given prior intimation to the insurance company, as required under the Conduct Rules, either regarding sale of the plot or as to receipt of an amount of Rs. 2,86,000/- as advance.

(ii) Non-judicial stamp of Rs. 50/-, whereon the sale agreement p