IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
(24.7.2013)
Criminal Writ Nos. 442 of 2012 with 251, 219, 940, 794, 1241, 946, with 714 of 2011
Dhaneshwar Pandit (in 442)
Braj Kishore Dwivedy (in 251)
Shree Kishore Prasad (in 219)
Arun Kumar Jha (in 940) : Petitionere
Ram Pati Pandey
@ R.P. Pandey & Anr. (in 794)
Ram Kripal Singh (in 1241)
Nanheshwar Sinha (in 946)
Sri Mithilesh Prasad
@ M.K. Sinha & Anr. (in 714)
Vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. : Respondents
(in all)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973–Section 197–Privilege of immunity from prosecution without sanction extends only to act which can be shown to be done in discharge of official duty, or to purport to be done in such discharge; but an offence arising out of abuse of official position by an act not purporting to be official act does not require sanction under section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 29)
(2007)1 SCC 1; (2012) 1 SCC 532–Relied.
All these writ petitions arise out of Vigilance P.S.Case No.8 of 2004 dated 28.7.2004 instituted under sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477A, 409, 418, 420, 218, 109,119, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Penal Code) and 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the P.C. Act”). The prayers made in the writ petitions in paragraph 1 are as under:—
Cr.W.J.C. No.442 of 2012
“1. That by way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner craves indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for grant of following reliefs:—
(i) For issuance of an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter no.137 dated 28.4.2011 to the extent it relates to the petitioner, whereby the Bihar State Electricity Board has accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner and other officers of the Board.
(ii) For issuance of a consequential order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent, Bihar State Electricity Board to consider the matter, regarding according of sanction afresh, in the facts and circumstances of this case in accordance with law.
(iii) For any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is found to be entitled under the law in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
Cr.W.J.C. No.251 of 2011
“1. That by this writ application, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s), order(s) for the following reliefs.
(i) For quashing the entire criminal prosecution including the First Information Report of the Vigilance P.S, Case No.08 of 2004 dated 28.7.2004 giving rise to Special Case No.11 of 2004, pending in the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna as being wholly illegal against the petitioner.
(ii) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled to in the following facts and circumstances of this case.”
Cr.W.J.C. No.219 of 2011
“1. That by this writ application the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s), order(s) for the following reliefs.
(i) For quashing the entire prosecution including the first information report of the Vigilance Police Case No.08/2004 giving rise to Special Case No.11/2004, pending in the court of the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna.
(ii) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled to in the following facts and circumstances of this case.
(iii) That the petitioner submits that the pendency of the case is an abuse of the process of the court apart from being mollified and baneful to the fundamental rights of the petitioner including the right of life and is also in breach of at the provisions of the P.C. Act.”
Cr.W.J.C. No.940 of 2011
“1. That, by way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner craves the indulgence of this Hon’ble court for grant of the following reliefs:—
(i) Issuance of an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 28/4/2011 whereby the Board has accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner.
(ii) Issuance of an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing request dated 19/8/2011 whereby Dy. S.P. of Vigilance Department has requested the Chairman, JSEB to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner in Vigilance P.S. Case No.08/04.
(iii) Issuance of an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing request dated 19/8/2011 whereby Inspector General, Vigilance has requested the Chairman JSEB to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner in Vigilance P.S. Case No.08/04.
(iv) Issuance of an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the entire proceeding against the petitioner appertaining to Vigilance P.S. Case No.08/04.
(v) Any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioners may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Cr.W.J.C. No.794 of 2011
“1. That by
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.