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