Criminal Revision No.856 of 2005 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 15, 2008 Dr.Om Parkash Yadav .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two Criminal Revisions No.856 of 2005 (Dr.Om Parkash Yadav v. State of Haryana) and 1005 of 2005 (Dr.Akhlesh Dutt Tiwari v. State of Haryana). The facts are being taken from Criminal Revision No.856 of 2005. The petitioner had been charge-sheeted vide order dated 31.3.2005 in case FIR No.31 dated 4.6.2002 under Sections 7/13 of Criminal Revision No.856 of 2005 : 2 : Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B IPC. The facts noticed in brief are that a complaint was made by ten students against Dr.A.D.Tiwari, Head of the Department of Paediatrics, PGIMS, Rohtak to the Vice-Chancellor, Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak alleging that Dr.Tiwari had been exploiting all the residents particularly the complainants being their Examiner. It is alleged that the petitioner advanced threat to the complainants for failing them in examination, if they dared to talk against him and forced them to pay amount ranging from Rs.500/- to Rs.2000/- from time to time. Copy of the complaint has been annexed with the record as Annexure P-1. Another complaint was filed before Health Minister, Government of Haryana and Enquiry Committee was, thus, constituted to hold enquiry into the allegations made in the complaint. Enquiry report was submitted on 8.11.2000. It is stated that no allegations were made against the petitioner before the Enquiry Committee. The students, who had allegedly made this complaint, also refused to become a party, but still the name of the petitioner has been dragged with some ulterior motive and hence the order framing the charge is urged to be bad in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter-alia, contends that the charge as framed cannot be sustained on the ground that different allegations pertaining to the period 1996 to 2002 have been clubbed together to make one charge against the petitioner, which is not permissible under law. The counsel would refer to the provisions of Section 219 Cr.P.C. which provide that three offences of same kind within one year may be charged together. As per the section, Criminal Revision No.856 of 2005 : 3 : when a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within a space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three. Basing his submission on Section 219 Cr.P.C., the counsel contends that action of the Special Judge in framing charge against the petitioner for demanding and accepting various sum of rupees as mentioned in the charge sheet within a period of 1996 to 2002 would certainly not be permissible under law. State counsel could not say much while opposing the prayer made in the revisions except that the petitioner is found involved in a serious offence of accepting bribe. Counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the charges framed in this case. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is accused of accepting a sum of Rs.2500/- from Dr.M.L.Sharma in three instalments between the period from 20.4.1999 to 19.4.2001 and different amounts ranging from Rs.500/- to Rs.2000/- from different persons within a period between 1996 and 2002. In fact, number of instances have been clubbed together to frame one charge in this regard against the petitioner. The charge as framed clearly would be in violation of the provisions of Section 219 Cr.P.C. which would only permit framing of three offences committed within a period of one year to be charged together. A trial for more than one offence even if connected together as to form the same transaction, may be chargeable and tried at one trial for every such offence. Even the separate transaction allegedly committed by the petitioner Criminal Revision No.856 of 2005 : 4 : may be open to be charged separately and tried at the same trial, but they could not have been joined together to frame one charge as has been done in this case, especially in view of the provisions of Section 219 Cr.P.C. The order framing the charge in the manner it has been done, as such, cannot be sustained. The same is set-aside. The case will go back to the trial court for re-framing the charges in accordance with law. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the material and the evidence for framing the charge against the petitioner. The present revisions are allowed only on technical ground that more than three offences committed, not within a period of one year, have been clubbed together to frame one charge which will be in violation of the provisions of Section 219 Cr.P.C. The court would be at liberty to frame number of charges on the basis of different allegations pertaining to different dates, if otherwise permissible on the basis of evidence and material collected during the investigation. October 15, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE