Crl. Revision No. 1608 of 2005 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No. 1608 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.9.2011. K.K.Jarath .......Petitioner Vs. Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for U.T., Chandigarh. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 01.4.2005 whereby charge was ordered to be framed against the petitioner under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('Act' for short). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. The petitioner had only sanctioned the tour of the subordinate officers on Car No. CH-01-G-0200 to Delhi. Qua the same period, the official tour of the petitioner had been sanctioned by his higher authority. No offence under the Act was made out in the present case. In support of his argument, learned counsel Crl. Revision No. 1608 of 2005 (O&M) -2 - for the petitioner has placed reliance on 'C. Chenga Reddy versus State of Andhra Pradesh, 1996(3) Recent Criminal Reports, 793', wherein it was held as under:- “The conclusions arrived at by the courts below that the official appellants did not allow the codal provisions and that they have committed gross financial irregularities and administrative lapses in the matter of clearance of the prickly pier jungle under Kudimaramath Rules and other relevant provisions cannot be faulted with but nonetheless, the same cannot be construed as “incriminating circumstances” to fasten criminal liability on the appellants.” Learned counsel for the administration, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner could take up all the pleas available to him during trial. Although the charge had been framed against the petitioner only qua abuse of his official position while sanctioning tour to his subordinate officers to Delhi, the allegations against the petitioner were serious in nature. Allegations had been levelled against the petitioner that the official car had been misused. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. The petitioner undertook journeys to Delhi in the year 1995-1996 for attending various official works. The petitioner also accorded sanction for journeys of his subordinates in his official staff car on the same dates. It was found that the Crl. Revision No. 1608 of 2005 (O&M) -3 - journeys performed by the subordinates officers in the said car were for the same purpose on the most of the days. The car had been misused by the petitioner while his stay in Delhi. Thus, the journey by car of his subordinates, was an eye-wash to legalize the trips of the subordinate officers by his staff car. Moreover, the petitioner was supposed to undertake the official journeys in his staff car instead of deputing his subordinates to tour in his staff car. From the above allegations, it is evident that the petitioner while sanctioning the tour of his subordinate officers had abused his official position. The petitioner would be be at liberty to take up all the pleas available to him during trial. Although at this stage charge has not been framed against the petitioner qua misuse of the car but the charge can be amended at a later stage if evidence in this regard is brought before the trial court. Hence, it would not be just and expedient to quash the criminal proceedings at this stage. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner as it is based on different facts. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 02, 2011 Gurpreet