JUDGEMENT
Shivaraj V. Patil, J. -
(1.)This petition is by the State of Madhya Pradesh directed against the order dated 10-11-1998 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Revision No. 274/98 by which the charges framed against the respondent under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the 'Act') were quashed.
(2.)The relevant and necessary facts to dispose of this petition are:
The respondent was working as a Road Transport Inspector in the Regional Office of the Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal and is a public servant as such. A complaint under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act for the check period 25-9-1982 to 27-3-1993 was filed stating that he had acquired the property in excess of the known source of his income. During the investigation properties and assets belonging to his mother-in-law, father, brother and nephew were shown as assets of the respondent. The assets of his wife, who is an income-tax payer and a self-earning member, were also connected with the assets of the respondent. While submitting charge-sheet several important documents, which were collected during the course of investigation, were withheld. According to the respondent the said documents supported him. If those documents were considered even prima facie there was no scope to frame charges against him. At the time of framing charges the respondent made an application seeking production of these documents in Court before proceeding to frame charge. But the said application was rejected stating that for the purpose of framing charges only the documents forwarded to the Court under Section 173(5), Cr. P. C. need to be considered. Hence he filed Criminal Revision No. 337/97 in the High Court. The said Revision Petition was disposed of by the order dated 8-9-1997 in the following terms:-
"In the result the revision is allowed, the order impugned is set aside and it is directed that the documents made available by the accused during investigation be produced and may be taken into consideration by the Court below while framing the charge."
(3.)Thereafter the trial Court framed charges under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order dated 4-4-1988 framing charges in the Special Case No. 26/96 by the Special Judge, Indore, the respondent filed Criminal Revision No. 274/98. The High Court by order dated 10-11-1998 accepted the case of the respondent, set aside the order of the learned Special Judge, Indore, framing charges and discharged the respondent. In these circumstances the State has come up in this petition challenging the said order of the High Court.