IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
Cr. WJC No.1393 of 2018
(10.4.2024)
Manoj Razak @ Manoj Kumar Razak ... Petitioner
vs.
Inspector General of Police & Anr. ... Respondents
Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006 – Clause 2 (vi) – Claim for reimbursement of Value Added Tax – Under 2006 Policy, unequivocal promise made by State was that new industrial unit which commences production within five years from cut-off date fixed under Policy, shall be entitled for VAT reimbursement to the extent of 80% – Doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable against government in exercise of its governmental/public or executive functions – State Government granted eligibility certificate under 2006 Policy to petitioner/company certifying that petitioner/unit is eligible to receive reimbursement of 80% of VAT paid under Industrial Policy, 2006 – Policy was acted upon and petitioner/unit based on promise, made under policy, altered/changed its position by establishing manufacturing unit – It invested a lot of amount also on the basis of promise made in Policy – State cannot deny benefits arising out of 2006 Policy on principles of promissory estoppel/legitimate expectation – Respondent/authorities directed to reimburse 80% of the VAT amount paid by petitioner/company for period 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 after adjusting amount which has already been paid by respondents to petitioner. (Paras 14, 15 and 16)
Bibek Chaudhuri, J. – The petitioner is a public servant, presently posted at Motihari as an Additional Collector in the District of Motihari, East Champaran. At the relevant point of time, concerning the instant writ petition, he was posted as a Block Development Officer, Narkatiaganj. Upon a complaint lodged by one Kailash Yadav before the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, North Bihar at Muzaffarpur, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner in collusion and connivance with the local Gram Panchayat members, executive officer of the Gram Panchayat and others committed misappropriation, cheating by forging documents, by means of corrupt practice, for illegal gain of money in respect of delivery of essential commodities to the citizens belonging Below Poverty Line (BPL) and other sections of poor people (Antayodya). It is alleged that the accused persons committed an offence under Section 409/420/467/468/491/120B of the IPC and Sections 7/10/13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. The said complaint before the learned Special Judge Vigilance at Muzzafarpur gave rise to the registration of complaint case no. 216 of 2008. Amongst the accused persons, there are one Nikhil Ranjan Kumar, Mukhiya of Raj kehuniya Roari Gram Panchayat, one Ravindra Roy and one Manoj Kumar, a dealer of Public Distribution System, one Ashok Pandey Panchayat Secretary and the petitioner herein, who was posted as B.D.O. of Narkatiaganj Block at the relevant point of time.
3. It is alleged that the above-named accused persons in conspiracy with each other illegally and wrongfully gained lakhs of rupees in course of delivery of red coupons to the BPL card holders and yellow coupons to other card holders who were entitled to get food grain under the Public Distribution System. The complainant, time and again made complaints before various authorities including the police authorities, but no effective step was taken against the wrongdoers. It is alleged by the complainant that in the coupons original names of the BPL and Antyodaya card holders were written but the names were struck down and names of other persons were recorded and the food grains, edible oils, and other articles were given to them. It is also alleged that the coupons were sold out to persons other than BPL and Antyodaya card holders. The above-named persons also misappropriated money from different government schemes for the construction of houses for homeless people of the locality and also under various schemes. On receiving such complaints, the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, North Bihar at Muzaffarpur sent the said complaint for inquiry for investigation. The Investigating Officer (I.O., for short) submitted a charge sheet against Nikhil Ranjan Kumar, Ashok Kumar Pandey, Manoj Kumar Mishra, and Manoj Kumar Razzak under Section 409/420/467/468/471/120B of the IPC and Section 7/10/13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
4. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 17th January 2017 on the ground that there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused persons and also recorded the fact that sanction order for prosecution against the petitioner was also received. The petitioner being a public servant has filed the instant writ petition praying for quashing the order dated 17th January 2017 by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance at Muzaffarpur.
5. Basically, in the instant writ petition, the question of law which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner are as follows: –
(a) Whether taking cognizance by the learned Court below without having proper sanction for lodging the private complaint is violative of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(b) Whether private complaint can be entertained without a proper sanction under Section 197 read with Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(c) Whether the order of taking cognizance against the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of UP
The sanction contemplated in Section 197 of the Code concerns a public servant who is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge o....
Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 PC Act mandatory before directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC or registering FIR against public servant for official duty acts; absenc....
Point of Law : High Court was absolutely right in setting aside the order of the Special Judge. Unlike Section 19 of the PC Act, the protection under Section 197 CrPC is available to the public serva....
Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 19 PC Act mandatory before directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC or registering FIR against public servant for offences in discharge of o....
A private complaint against a public servant for corruption requires prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, regardless of the complaint's stage.
Important points:When a complaint is filed before the Magistrate, ordinarily, he has got two options. The Magistrate may either forward the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code fo....
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.