9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ordering discharge of the accused persons as if sitting in appeal against an order of conviction. So far as the contention of Mr. Krishnan is concerned as to whether Reshamwala not being a public servant could be prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the said question has recently been answered by a Bench of this Court in the case of P. Nallammal etc. v. State Rep. By Inspector of Police [1999 (8) TMI 953 - SUPREME COURT]. We, therefore, no force in the aforesaid contention. In the circumstances, the impugned Judgment of the High Court is set aside. These appeals are allowed X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mwala was opened, a sum of Rs. Two lacs was recovered. It was the prosecution case that Udai Narain earlier had telephoned Reshamwala and told him to come with necessary case papers and a sum of Rs. Two lacs, so that his pending case at Jaipur could be settled. On these allegations, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against both the accused persons under Sections 8, 10, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons moved application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge, before the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption. The said learned Special Judge rejected that petition by order dated 13th May, 1998. Agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date and adjudged from that stand point, the impugned judgment cannot be said to be infirm in any manner. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr., 1996 (9) SCC 766. Mr. Krishnan, in addition contended that Reshamwala not being a public servant, could not have been prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 6. Having examined the rival submission at the Bar and on scrutinizing the impugned Judgment of the High Court, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court committed serious error in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
