HIGH COURT OF J AMMU AND KASHMIR

AT JAMMU

561-A no. 135/2009

Date of order: 05.02.2010

CrMP no. 136/2009

Janak Singh.

v.

State of J&K & anr .

Coram:

Honble Mr. Justice Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice

Appearing counsel:

For petitioner(s) :

Mr. U. K. Jalali, Sr. Advocate with

Ms. Shivani Jalali, Advocate.

For respondent(s) :

Mr. Jagdish Parihar, AAG.

i) Whether approved for reporting in

Yes.

Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication

in press:

Optional

At the time when the charge sheet was filed, applicant

was in government service, inasmuch as order of premature

retirement stood quashed by an order passed on a writ petition.

The date when the Special Judge Anti-corruption refused to

discharge the applicant and framed charge against him,

applicant

having

had

reached

the

normal

age

of

superannuation, stood retired from government service.

2

Applicant contends that as on the date the charge sheet,

i.e., Police Report was filed before the Court, that is the date

when the Court is deemed to have taken cognizance and

Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 debars the

Court from taking cognizance. The word cognizance means

being aware specially in a legitimate or official way. No doubt,

when the Police Report was filed, Special Judge Anti-

corruption became aware that the charge sheet has been filed.

The question is, can it be said that on the said date Special

Judge Anti-corruption became aware of the charge sheet in a

legitimate or official way?

The conjoint reading of Sections 268, 267 and 269 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure makes it abundantly clear that only

when prosecution describes the charge brought against the

accused by orally presenting its case before the Special Judge

Anti-corruption, he becomes aware of the charge in a

legitimate or official way. Section 6 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 2006, prevents the Court from being so aware

without sanction.

3

In the instant case, admittedly, when the case was

presented before the Special Judge Anti-corruption by the

prosecution, the applicant was not a government employee

and, accordingly, question of grant of any sanction to

prosecute the applicant did not arise and, similarly, absence

thereof did not prevent Special Judge Anti-corruption from

taking cognizance.

In the charge sheet, it was alleged that the enquiry which

resulted in placing of an order in favour of M/s. Vee Kay

Industries was Enquiry No. KG-82/2012/2861 dated November

18, 2002. It was alleged that the said enquiry had three parts

and the third part required offers for supply of Wheel Alignment

Tester with standard accessories. It alleged that the tender was

responded also by M/s. Vee Kay Industries, who had offered

the second lowest price. While giving such offer, it was alleged,

M/s. Vee Kay Industries indicated different models of Wheel

Alignment Tester as per offered specifications. The charge

sheet alleged that after tenders were opened, tender

documents were sent to the Regional Engineering College for

technical opinion, who gave a technical opinion to the effect

that Model Digital Toe Aligner (DTA-1) of tender T23/23,

4

should be purchased. It was alleged that none of the tenderers,

who responded to the said enquiry dated November 18, 2002,

had offered any price for supply of Model Digital Toe Aligner

(DTA-1) of tender T23/23. The charge sheet further alleged

that subsequent to receipt of the said opinion of the Technical

Committee, the Purchase Committee placed an order on M/s.

Vee Kay Industries for purchase of Model Digital Toe Aligner

(DTA-1) at price of Rs. 1.7 lacs each which, on inquiry it has

come, was available in the market at Rs. 90,000/- each. It was

stated tha