Provisions of the PC Act cannot be dropped by mere filing of the status report by the IO. It can only be determined by the trial court at the time of taking cognizance of the matter and summoning of the accused
Charges against an accused under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) cannot be dropped after mere filing of a status report by an Investigating Officer and only a trial court can take this decision at the time of taking cognizance and summoning the accused, Delhi High Court (HC) has said.
The observations were made by justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, while deciding on an appeal filed by government official Pramod Garg, who had sought setting aside of a bail cancellation order by a special judge. Garg was accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the PC Act.
"Provisions of the PC Act cannot be dropped by mere filing of the status report by the IO. It can only be determined by the trial court at the time of taking cognizance of the matter and summoning of the accused," the court stated.
Even though the single-judge bench granted bail to Garg on the grounds that this was a case where "a court is exercising concurrent jurisdiction", it held that the police and complainants were "at liberty to seek remedy before the appropriate forum, as provided under law".
"Furthermore, so far as order dated November 28, 2012, of the ASJ is concerned, the same is also bad in law. The only appropriate forum to grant bail ought to be the Special Judge in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the PC Act," the court said in its order.
Garg was granted regular bail by an additional sessions judge (ASJ) on December 28, 2012. The police had filed a status report in the court, stating that no supporting evidence was found against DDA officials and so provisions of the PC Act were dropped.
This bail order was challenged by the police and the complainant before the special judge, who cancelled the bail of the accused.
Garg then appealed in the court through his counsels, senior advocate Ramesh Gupta, Sanjay Sehgal, and Tarun Narang, following which the bail was granted.
Appearing for Garg, Gupta had contended that the order passed by the Special Judge was "illegal" and "perverse" as he lacked jurisdiction. He also submitted that by cancelling the bail granted by the ASJ, the Special Judge had used the power of an appellate court, which is not permitted in law.
TIMELINE
Feb 22, 2010
FIR registered against Pramod Garg at Kotla Mubarakpur police station.
Oct 18, 2012
Anticipatory bail cancelled by a special judge at Tis Hazari court.
Aug 24, 2012
Sections of the PC Act dropped.
Dec 27, 2012
Garg arrested again, bail dismissed by metropolitan magistrate.
Dec 28, 2012
Regular bail granted by additional sessions judge.
Nov 18, 2014
Bail cancelled by special judge.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Bribe")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}