The petitioner also submitted that thereafter the companyplainant applied for sanction to prosecute the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on four different occasions, but such sanction was number granted while the petitioner remained in service.
The petitioner submitted that an application filed by the companyplainant on 18th September, 2003, for recall of the order dated 24th July, 2003, was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak.
No.6703 M of 2000 and Crl.
The petitioner ultimately retired from service on 31st January, 2002.
Ved Wati on 29th September, 2003, on the same grounds under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on which process was issued on 8th January, 2004.
The petitioner also urged that since under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the learned Additional Sessions Judge was number companypetent to recall and or review his earlier order, he was number companypetent to entertain the second companyplaint on the same set of facts and between the same parties.
The Crl.
Thereafter, yet another companyplaint was filed by Smt.
Appearing for the companyplainant, Smt.
Immediately thereafter, on 8th April, 2002, the companyplainant filed the companyplaint mentioned hereinabove under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 8th April, 2002, which was entertained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, and process was issued on 16th April, 2003.
The said matter is still pending before the learned Magistrate.
No.6703 M of 2000 was filed by the petitioner herein to quash a companyplaint filed by Smt.
The petitioner further submitted that the companyplaint filed on 8th April, 2002, on which process had been issued on 16th April, 2003, came to be dismissed on 24th July, 2003, for number filing of process fee.
Process was issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, Haryana, on the said companyplaint on 19th August, 1999.
Both the Criminal Revision Petitions were taken up for hearing and disposal together by the High Court on 31st May, 2007, and were dismissed by a companymon judgment and order, which has been assailed in these Special Leave Petitions.
Ved Wati, Respondent No.2 herein, on 1st July, 1999, under Section 420/34 I.P.C. on allegations of payment having been received by the petitioner to perform certain favours for the companyplainants son in law by making use of his official position.
In support of his submissions, the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Sankatha Singh vs. State of U.P. 1962 Supp.
No.598 M of 2005 filed by the petitioner herein, who is appearing in person.
The petitioner submitted that having taken companynizance on the companyplaint filed by Smt.
Ved Wati on 29th September, 2003, under Sections 7, 8, 9, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, issued process on 8th January, 2004.
No.598 M of 2005 was filed by the petitioner for quashing another companyplaint filed by the said Smt.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. These Special Leave Petitions arise out of the judgment and order passed by the Punjab Haryana High Court on 31st May, 2007, dismissing two criminal revision cases, viz.,
