In this post, we will read about how cases in below courts can be clubbed together and heard along by moving an application before Punjab Haryana High Court at Chandigarh though it is the discretion of court to allow it or not as it is not a matter of right. Rest, facts of each case are different so as the fate of case. This is just for informational purpose and not be construed as legal advice.
Who is involved in this matter?
Chandra Shekhar (the accused), former BSNL general manager was held by the CBI for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs. 25k. The CBI claimed they had caught him accepting the bribe on June 3, 2004. Rs. 45 lakh was also discovered upon a search at the residence of Shekhar.
Two separate FIRs were registered and both FIRs are being tried separately under two different courts. One FIR is registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, being tried by the CBI Court, Panchkula. The second FIR is for offences under amassing disproportion assets, being tried at the CBI Special court in Chandigarh.
Also Read- Criminal Lawyers in Tricity
What is the Issue?
Currently, the accused has pleaded to the High Court that both cases be tried together but the High Court rejected the clubbing motion based on the CBI’s argument; that the accused is deliberately trying to delay the trial, both of the cases’ circumstances differ and warrant different trials
What are the Offences?
Since the news article has not stated the exact charges that were applied to the accused, bribery was stated and one of the most common charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act is bribery. The possible reason for not stating the specific sections applied may be because he may and can be subjected to sections 7 to 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Sections 7 to 12 of the PC Act all specifically differentiate the obtainment valuable things, the Rs. 25k cash allegedly accepted by the accused. This bribery case is being tried at the CBI court in, Panchkula while the other FIR, offences under amassing disproportion assets is not.
Section 13 – constitutes Criminal Misconduct by a public Servant, and they sub-sections 1 clause (e) specifically constitutes “property disproportionate to his known sources of income” while Section 13 subsection (2) states the punishments for misconduct.
Even though both FIRs fall under the PC Act, they are being tried at different courts, that reason can only be sustained once all the facts of the cases have been thoroughly examined. Justice Arvind Sangwan, has determined that both cases should stay apart due to the facts.
Rest, for cases related CBI special courts Chandigarh one may contact TOP/BEST/EXPERT Criminal/Civil Lawyer/Advocate of Tri-City.
More on 99888-17966.