Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Birendra Kumar, J.
SARYUG KUMAR - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CABINET VIGILANCE, PATNA - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 19391 of 2016
Decided On : 16-09-2019
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Cognizance taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Power of the governing body subject to the statutory provisions to follow the statutes made – Governing body consist of some members nominated by the Syndicate coupled with the power of the Syndicate – The Vice-Chancellor even to suspend the governing body, which is action taking authority as well as power of the Syndicate to approve the action of dismissal and removal from the service by the governing body – The governing body not being a supreme body to dismiss and remove from service any of its employee rather the University is supreme body under the Act and the Statue made – The pervasive control of the University on the governing body established by the statutory provisions – If the sanction been accorded by the authority superior to the authority competent to remove the petitioner from the office, it does not get invalidated – It become invalid if the sanction been granted by the authority subordinate to the authority who grants the sanction – Even it is assumed for argument sake that governing body is authority competent to grant sanction, the grant of sanction by a superior authority to that of the governing body cannot be faulted with as invalid and suffering from error in grant of sanction leading to a failure of justice – No merit in the application – Application dismissed – The trial Court not be prejudiced by any observation in order while deciding the issue of validity of sanction during the trial and the same be decided according to law – Application dismissed. (Paras 1 to 32)
AIR 1995 SC 1314; (2014)11 SCC 431 – Referred to.
JUDGMENT/ORDER :
Birendra Kumar, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has sought for quashment of order of cognizance dated 15.03.2016 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance-II, Patna, in Vigilance Police Station Case No.46 of 2015, corresponding to Special Case No.9 of 2015, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
3. The prosecution case is that informant Amrit Kumar Singh gave a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna, alleging therein that the informant is a regular student of the Temple of Hahnemann Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Munger (hereinafter referred to as 'THH College') where the petitioner was In-Charge Principal. The informant passed in theory papers for four and half years of Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery in the year 2013. Thereafter, the petitioner joined the House Surgeon-ship on 16.05.2014 and the House Surgeonship completed on 16.05.2015. Allegation is that the informant had to take certificate of the House Surgeon-ship as well as certificate of his character from the petitioner being Principal of the College and petitioner demanded Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) to provide the certificate. The informant prayed for taking appropriate action against the Principal.
Thereafter, the Vigilance Bureau constituted a raiding team and raided the petitioner who was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.30,000/-. The notes used in the trap were of Rs.1,000/- denomination. The aforesaid facts appeared in the pre-trap memo as well as post-trap memo. The trap was conducted on 12.06.2015.
4. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet and accordingly the impugned order of cognizance was passed. The impugned order reads as follows:
| "Investigating officer of this case has filed charge sheet for the offence u/s. 7/13(2) read with u/s. 13(1)(d) P.C. Act against the accused person namely Dr. Saryug Kumar I.O. has also filed case diary and Sanction order for prosecution against the accused. Seen, let it be kept on the record and put up the record for hearing on the point of Cognizance. |
| Sd/- |
| Spl. Judge Vig-II |
| Later on: |
| Heard, Special P.P. for the vigilance on the point of cognizance. |
| It is the submission of the Spl. P.P. that Investigating Officer has submitted the Charge Sheet for the Offences u/s. 7/13(2) read with u/s. 13(1)(d) P.C. Act against the accused person namely Dr. Saryug Kumar. I.O. has also filed sanction for prosecution against the accused. Learned Special P.P. prayed that Cognizance may be taken in respect of the offence under P.C. Act as specified because a prima facie case made out against the accused person. |
| Perused the police papers including the F.I.R., Charge Sheet, Sanction Order and case diary, I find that there is sufficient materials against the accused for proceeding further. Accordingly cognizance is taken for the offence u/s. 7/13(2) read with u/s. 13(1)(d) P.C. Act against the accused person namely Dr. Saryug Kumar. Put up the record on the date fixed for further hearing." |
5. The challenge is on the ground that THH College, Munger, is a charitable institution established in the year 1954 with the object of promoting and educating knowledge of Homeopathic Medicines and Medical aid to the general public, especially the poor. The College was registered on 04.11.1963 and the petitioner was appointed as In-Charge Principal of the College on 29.06.2012 by the ad hoc governing body functioning to look after the management and administration of the College. According to the petitioner, the College is a private and unaided institution. The appointment of the Principal is done 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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
