anticureption act.
ashok prajapati
(Querist) 30 September 2009
This query is : Resolved
cureption cases mai kitne din ke limite hoti hai chargsheet file kar ne ke? plzz its a urgent give me my answer
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 30 September 2009
There is no time limit to file charge-sheet in corruption case or in any other criminal case because it depends upon the investigation of the case. As soon as investigation is completed, the same is filed.
ashok prajapati
(Querist) 01 October 2009
thanks sir bcoz mai thoda confuse tha
Sachin Bhatia
(Expert) 01 October 2009
There is no time limit to file charge-sheet in corruption case.
tarun goyal
(Expert) 01 October 2009
further, if the person is arrested, then delay in filing of charge sheet entitles him to get bail after 60/90 days from the date ofd arrest.
tarun goyal
(Expert) 01 October 2009
dear also find the below cases to get more insight. i hope these will help you.
CHARGE SHEET – EFFECT OF DELAY
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.
P.V. Pavitharan *
Facts
A case under Section 5(2) with Section 5(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the respondent, an officer in IPS in March, 1984. The respondent was placed under suspension pending inquiry but on the basis of inquiry the State Government passed an order in September 1984 for stopping further action and for his reinstatement in service. However, by a subsequent order in July 1985, the government cancelled its earlier order and directed the respondent to show cause as to why the penalty of compulsory retirement should not be imposed on him. The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order. The writ petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, which held that the impugned order was illegal and beyond the powers of the government. The government being aggrieved filed an SLP before the Supreme Court, which on November 16, 1988 dismissed the same in view of the fact that the respondent had already retired from service on attaining age of superannuation. Meanwhile the Anti-Corruption Bureau after completing its investigation in the criminal case had submitted its report in April 1987 to its Director – General who in turn had sent the same to the government on September 17, 1988. The respondent filed the criminal petition for quashing further proceedings pursuant to the registration of the first information report , inter aila, contending that there had been full in the investigation for fairly long spell causing inordinate delay and that the prosecution had not filed its report contemplated under Section 173 Cr.P.C. till he filed the petition for quashing the proceedings in November 1987 though the case was registered in March 1984. The High Court on July 29, 1988 quashed the FIR and the subsequent proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay in the investigation. However, the appellant-government accorded sanction for prosecution of the respondent only on September 16, 1988 i.e after nearly 50 days of the quashing of the FIR. Dismissing the appeal of the State on the peculiar facts the Supreme Court.
Held
In view of the facts and circumstances and the various events following the suspension of the respondent calumniating in his being allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, it is not a fit case for interference.
However, no general and wide proposition of law can be formulated that wherever there is any inordinate delay on the part of the investigating agency in completing the investigation such delay is a ground to quash the FIR. It is not possible to formulate inflexible guidelines or rigid principles of uniform application for speedy investigation or to stipulate any arbitrary period of limitation within which investigation in a criminal case should be completed. The determination of the question whether the accused has been deprived of a fair trial on account of delayed or protracted investigation would also depend on various factors including whether such delay was unreasonably long or caused deliberately or intentionally to hamper the defence of the accused or whether such delay was inevitable in the nature of things of whether it was due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the accused. The court, in addition, has no consider whether such delay on the part of the investigating agency has caused grave prejudice or disadvantage to the accused. It is imperative that if investigation of a criminal proceeding staggers on with hardy pace due to the indolence or inefficiency of the investigating agency causing unreasonable and substantial delay resulting in grave prejudice or disadvantage to the accused, the court as the protector of the right and personal liberty of the citizen will step in and resort to the drastic remedy of quashing further proceedings in such investigation. While so, there are offences of grave magnitude such as diabolical crimes of conspiracy or clandestine crimes committed by members of the underworld with their tentacles spread over various parts of the country or even abroad. The very nature of such offences would necessarily involve considerable time for unearthing the crimes and bringing the culprits book.
________________
*(1990) 2SCC 340
K.VEERASWAMI vs UNION OF INDIA *
Held
The Investigating Officer is only required to collect material to find out whether the offence alleged appears to have been committed. In the course of the investigation, he may examine the accused. He may seek his clarification and if necessary he may cross check with him about his known sources of income and assets possessed by him. Indeed, fair investigation requires that the accused should not be kept in darkness. He should be taken into confidence if he is willing to cooperate. But to state that after collection of all material the Investigating Officer must give a opportunity to the accused and call upon him to account for the excess of the assets over the known sources of income and then decide whether the accounting is satisfactory or not, would be elevating the Investigating Officer is not holding and enquiry against the conduct of the public servant or determining the disputed issues regarding the disproportionality between the assets and the income of the accused. He just collects material from all sides and prepares a report, which he files in the court as charge-sheet.
The charge-sheet is nothing but a final report of police officer under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. The statutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2) would be complied with of the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. This report is intimation to the magistrate that upon investigation into a cognizable offence the Investigation Officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and the necessary information is being sent to the court. In fact, the report under Section 173(2), purports to be an opinion of the Investigating Officer that as far as he is concerned he has been able to procure sufficient material for the trial of the accused by the Court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses required by Section 175(5). Nothing more need be stated in the report of the Investigating Officer. It is also not necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated. The details of the offence are required to be proved to bring home the guilt to the accused at a later stage i.e. in the course of the trial of the case by adducing acceptable evidence.
________________
*(1991) 3 SCC 655
State of West Bengal vs Falguni Dutta and Another
In this case the Supreme Court has discussed the effect of delay in filing charge sheet where the matters are triable by Special Courts.
Held
In the case of offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act which is tried by a Special Court consulted under Section 12-A, the provision of sub-section (5) of Section 167 of the Code gets attracted if the investigation has not been completed within the period allowed by that sub-section. After the constitution of Special Courts all offences under the Act have to be tried by that Court in a summary way by applying the provisions of Section 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the Code. The provisions to clause (f) of Section 12-AA (1) of Essential commodities Act places a fetter on the power of the Court in the matter of passing a sentence on conviction, namely, that notwithstanding the fact that Section 7(1)(a)(ii) prescribes a punishment extending up to seven years and fine, Special Court shall not pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. It is this provision which att
