Kunjal Singh Thakur vs State of M.P.

Narain Singh "Azad", J.—In this petition dated 27-6-2002, the petitioner seeks quashment of Criminal Case No. 26/98, pending against him in the Court of Special Judge, Sidhi, for offences punishable u/s 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and in which, as many as 17 prosecution witnesses have already been examined.

As per the prosecution, this petitioner, who at the relevant time, was posted as Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department, Kusmi, Dist. Sidhi, employed 25 daily-wage employees in violation of circular dated 1st April, 1987, issued by G.A.D., Madhya Pradesh, and thus put the State Govt., to loss to the tune of Rs. 7,13,889/- for his own financial gain.

Referring order dated 17-8-99, passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 7474/98 (Shri R.S. Saxena v. State of M.P.), it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that since in aforesaid case also the Court was pleased to quash the proceeding in exercise of inherent powers, which were initiated on the same allegations of appointment in violation of G.A.D. circular dated 1-4-1987, the proceeding in Criminal Case No. 26/98, pending against this petitioner, are also liable to be quashed.

But it is found dictated by the Supreme Court in Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, in Criminal Appeal No. 981/2001, that in cases under Prevention of Corruption Act the proceeding u/s 482 of the Cr.PC are to be adopted in appropriate cases only. Then, it is also a settled position of law that an application u/s 482, Cr.PC should not be entertained at the late stage and the evidence cannot be appreciated in exercise of inherent powers.

Since the petitioner seeks quashment on the ground that the offence charged, is not prima facie made out against him, which would require consideration and appreciation of evidence and the petition is filed after an inordinate delay, when the statements of 17 prosecution witnesses are already recorded, therefore, on account of inordinate delay in filing the petition so also non-availability of right of seeking appreciation of evidence to this petitioner, in this petition filed u/s 482 of the Cr.PC, this petition does not merit, which is accordingly disallowed and rejected.