On the other hand, the learned senior companynsel for the respondent submitted that the order impugned in this petitioner is unassailable the trial companyrt companymitted manifest error in number companysidering the documents companylected during the companyrse of investigation though produced late but before framing charges, by the investigating agency itself pursuant to the order dated 8.9.1997 passed by the High companyrt in criminal Revision No.
The relevant and necessary facts to dispose of this petition are The respondent was working as a Road Transport Inspector in the Regional Office of the Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal and is a public servant as such.
The said order became final, it having number been challenged further.
26/96 by the Special Judge, Indore, the respondent filed Criminal Revision No.
The assets of his wife, who is an income tax payer and a self earning member, were also companynected with the assets of the respondent.
The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner companytended that at the stage of framing charges for offence under section 13 1 e read with Section 13 2 of the Act the Trial Judge was number required to companysider documents like income tax return and income tax orders and calculation chart of the accounts the documents like income tax assessment orders and calculation chart submitted by the respondent ought number to have been accepted at the stage of framing charges without proving them and that those documents companyld be proved during trial by the author as per the provisions of Evidence Act.
A companyplaint under Section 13 1 e read with Section 13 2 of the Act for the check period 25.9.1982 to 27.3.1993 was filed stating that he had acquired the property in excess of the known source of his income.
If those documents were companysidered even prima facie there was numberscope to frame charges against him.
While submitting charge sheet several important documents, which were companylected during the companyrse of investigation, were withheld.
In this situation the parties and the trial companyrt were bound and governed by the said direction.
Some of them even relate to the year 1988.
274/98.
Aggrieved by the order dated 4.4.1988 framing charges in the Special Case No.
The High Court in the order under appeal has elaborately companysidered the documents companylected during the companyrse of investigation and produced by the prosecution itself which were available at the time of framing charges.
In this view, the High Court set aside the order of the trial companyrt and passed the order discharging the respondent.
According to the respondent the said documents supported him.
During the investigation properties and assets belonging to his mother in law, father, brother and nephew were shown as assets of the respondent.
Hence he filed Criminal Revision No.
337/97 which prima facie supported the respondent and that the High Court having companysidered all the material that was available at the time of framing charges rightly set aside the order of the trial companyrt framing charges and discharged the respondent.
Since the trial companyrt did number follow the said direction, the High Court having companysidered all the material including the documents produced by the prosecution itself, which were companylected during the companyrse of investigation, and on being prima facie satisfied taking the documents on their face value held that numberoffence was made out and as such numbercharge companyld be framed against the respondent.
The High Court by order dated 10.11.1998 accepted the case of the respondent, set aside the order of the learned Special Judge, Indore, framing charges and discharged the respondent.
The said Revision Petition was disposed of by the order dated 8.9.1997 in the following terms In the result the revision is allowed, the order impugned is set aside and it is directed that the documents made available by the accused during investigation be produced and may be taken into companysideration by the companyrt below while framing the charge.
337/97 in the High companyrt.
He referred to and relied on the decision of this Court in State of M.P. vs. S.B. Johari and Others .
Thereafter the trial companyrt framed charges under Section 13 1 e read with Section 13 2 of the Act.
It may be added that most of the documents relate to the income tax returns or income tax assessment orders.
In these circumstances the State has companye up in this petition challenging the said order of the High Court.
At the time of framing charges the respondent made an application seeking production of these documents in companyrt before proceeding to frame charge.
All these documents pertain to the period prior to 26.3.1993.
337/97 in which the trial companyrt was directed that the documents made available by the accused during investigation be produced and they be taken into companysideration by the companyrt while framing charges.
We have examined the rival submissions made by the learned senior companynsel for the parties.
Our attention was specifically drawn to the earlier order of the High companyrt dated 8.9.1997 passed in Criminal Revision No.
Shivaraj V. Patil,J. This petition is by the State of Madhya Pradesh directed against the order dated 10.11.1998 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in criminal Revision No.
274/98 by which the charges framed against the respondent under Section 13 1 e read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for short the Act were quashed.
