IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Huzar Lollen, S/o. Late M. Lollen - Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P., Represented by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of A.P., Itanagar and Ors. - Respondents
Crl. Petn. No. 84 of 2022
Decided On : 05-01-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120(B), 420, 468, 471 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482, 197, 320 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13, 19 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property – Forgery for purpose of cheating – Learned counsel for petitioner learned Government Advocate for State respondent learned Standing Counsel for respondent – Held, Case considering entire facts and circumstances of Court this is a fit case where extra-ordinary power Criminal Procedure can be invoked to quash criminal proceeding – Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding offences under Section 320 of Code – Criminal petition stands disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. M.A. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Basar, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. O. Pada, learned Standing Counsel, SIC, for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for setting aside and quashing the F.I.R., dated 01.08.2007, in SIC(VIG) P.S. Case No. 04/2007, registered under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and also prayed to set aside and quash the Supplementary Charge-Sheet No. 1, dated 14.09.2015, in connection with SIC(VIG) P.S. Case No. 04/2007.
3. The brief facts, leading to filing of the present petition, is that the petitioner is an IAS Officer of 2002 Batch (Selection Grade), who was originally an APCS Officer of 1985 Batch and posted in various capacities under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh from time to time. During the period of 1999-2004, the petitioner was posted as the Deputy Commissioner, Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District, and thereafter, he was posted as Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, West Siang District. Subsequently, the petitioner retired from his service as the Commissioner, Public Libraries & Research, in the year 2019. During the entire tenure of his service, the petitioner had discharged his duty as a civil service officer very honestly and with integrity without any blemish.
4. In the year 2007, the Special Investigation Cell (VIG), Itanagar, registered an F.I.R., dated 01.08.2007, wherein, it was alleged that as per information received from PIL No. 50/2004 and as per order dated 15.06.2007, passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, that some officers and officials, Department of Civil Supply, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar; Directorate of Civil Supplies, Naharlagun; District Supply Officers & Officials of Upper Subansiri, Lower Subansiri, Papum Pare and Kurung Kumey Districts, entered into a criminal conspiracy with PDS wholesale nominee-cum-carriage contractors to cheat the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and siphoned off huge amount involving crores of rupees by submitting and claiming false bills and thereby causing undue favour to PDS wholesale nominee-cum-carriage contractors by abusing their official position as public servants. It is further alleged that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy during the period of 2002-2004, officers and officials of Department of Civil Supply, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, A.P. Civil Secretariat, Itanagar, fixed exorbitant rates for Hills Transport Subsidy (HTS) and Road Transport Charge (RTC) and wrongly appointed some wholesale nominee-cum-carriage contractors of Upper Subansiri, Lower Subansiri, Papum Pare and Kurung Kumey Districts for food grains in order to favour them for wrongly gain to parties and themselves by abusing their official position as public servants and thereby causing wrongful loss to the State exchequer to the tune of several crores of rupees. The food grains reportedly had not been delivered with allotted quantity under PDS to the targeted consumers in above mentioned Districts and prepared some false bills by falsifying the records for payments. Some payments have reportedly made to them without observing settled norms. Based on the aforesaid allegations, the F.I.R. was registered as SIC(VIG) P.S. Case No. 04/2007, under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5. The Special Investigation Cell (VIG), Itanagar, registered the aforesaid F.I.R. suo moto and started investigating the case. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Authorities allegedly seized some Bill documents for the period of 2022-2004 pertaining to the consumers of Upper Subansiri District, which revealed that total of 4095 quintals of Levy Sugar was allotted to Upper Sub
Surinderjit Singh Mand & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
D. Bevaraja Vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain
Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Arambam Thomchou Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao
The power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and there must be factual supporting material in the FIR to fasten the accused with criminal liability.
Cognizance cannot be taken twice for the same offence, and prosecution sanction is mandatory for public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Sanction for prosecution of public servants must reflect independent assessment; repeated refusals by the authority, absent new evidence, undermine legitimacy of prosecution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sanction must be accorded by the Competent Authority as per Sec. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the material collected for on....
The court ruled that civil and criminal proceedings can coexist in cases of fraud, emphasizing the necessity of a valid prosecution sanction.
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....
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.