SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(All) 4182

[2010(10) ADJ 504 (DB)(LB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : DEVI PRASAD SINGH AND S.C. CHAURASIA,J.
VISHWANATH CHATURVEDI ….Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ….Respondents
(Misc. Bench No. 10503 of 2009, decided on 3rd December, 2010)

Advocates:
Counsel :
K.K. Singh and Arvind Pratap Singh for the Petitioner; C.S.C., A.S.G., Bireshwar Nath, I.H. Farooqui for the Respondents.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Section 19—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 197—Public Servants—Foodgrain Scam—Prosecution of—Prior sanction for—Necessity—Smuggling of foodgrains meant for disbursement to poor and downtrodden under various schemes—Sale of allocated foodgrains in open market and transportation to foreign countries—Also as per Report submitted by various State agencies, there appears to be no doubt with regard to black-marketing of foodgrains in various districts of State—C.B.I. Investigation into matter—In appropriate cases whereas action is taken on direction issued by Court, Governmental authorities have no power to exercise discretion under Section 19—CBI and State agencies have prepared a charge-sheet in supervision of the Court—Thus, in such case, sanction under Section 19, read with Section 197, Cr.P.C., shall not be required—Courts may proceed with trial after receipt of charge-sheet. [Paras 120, 121 and 137 to 157]

       (B) Corrupt practices—Private conduct—Implication of—Deliberate corrupt practices is a 'private conduct' and does not fall in public domain—Thus, sanction under Section 19, P.C. Act, 1988 not required. [Paras 122 to 136]

       (C) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Preamble, Section 19—Object of Act—To deal with corruption more stringently—Act is more effective in combating corruption against public servants—Provision contained in Section 19 is to defend honest, fair and upright public servants. [Paras 47, 48, 74 and 75]

       (D) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Section 19—Provision of Section 19—Mode of interpretation—Presumptive construction—Section 19 should be interpreted by applying principle of presumptive interpretation—Sanction shall be necessary only in case Government servant acted bona fidely. [Paras 106 to 116]

       Result; Petition Allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—The petitioner, who claims to be a media person and public spirited citizen while approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, drew the attention of the Court towards the highest degree of corruption prevailing in the State of U.P. whereby the foodgrains meant for B.P.L card holders, Antyodaya Scheme, Jawahar Rozgar Yojna, mid-day meal etc. meant for poors and downtrodden have been smuggled not only out side the State but exported to outside country.

2. The factual matrix of the case and the material brought on record by the investigating agencies are not only startling but shows the alarming situation whereby the administration has been failed, to ensure the disbursement of foodgrains to the poor and downtrodden under various schemes.

3. The plight of the case is that when C.B.I. in some cases approached the State authorities for grant of statutory sanction, the same has been kept pending since months to come. Substantial question of law of public importance involved is :

(1) Whether it is necessary to obtain prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, Act), read with Section 197 of the CrPC for prosecution in each and every case without any exception ?

(2) Even if a public servant do something with blatant abuse of power intentionally, deliberately in a planned manner, whether he/she shall be entitled for protection of Section 19 of the Act read with Section 197 of the CrPC ?

4. The Government of India under its various schemes allocate foodgrains for distribution to labourers and persons below poverty line at subsidized rates. Such persons are provided cards, commonly called B.P.L., A.P.L. etc. In some cases, State of U.P. allocate foodgrains for distribution among such card holders as well as to supply the same under ‘Mid-Day Meal Scheme’ to provide lunch to the students of lower classes in terms of directions, issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and consequential circular issued from time to time and Jawahar Rozgar Yojana.

5. After receipt of information with regard to sale of foodgrains in open market as well as transportation to Nepal, Bangladesh, other countries as well as other States of India, the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 122(M/B) of 2005 with the prayer that the foodgrains meant for B.P.L., A.P.L. cardholders have been sold in open market as well as exported to outside country right from 2003 to 2007, in short “foodgrain scam”, hence, the matter may be investigated by the C.B.I. During the course of hearing, a statement was made by the State Government that it has referred the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigation with regard to foodgrains scam vide its order dated 19.12.2007. In view of the statement given writ petition No. 122(M/B) of 2005 was decided finally vide judgment and order dated 19.12.2007(Annexure No. 1).

6. The Division Bench of this Court took note of the fact that the allegation is serious one and the foodgrains meant for various beneficial Government schemes, such as Jawahar Rozgar Guarantee Yojna, Mid-Day Meal and Antyodaya Scheme etc have been transported to unforeseen destination. The State Government obtained the “fact finding report” from it special Investigation Team (SIT) marked as P-3/2007 which prima facie recorded a finding that the foodgrains in 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, meant for B.P.L., A.P.L. and Jawahar Rozgar Yojna etc have been sold in open market or transported to outside country. It shall be appropriate to reproduce relevant portion from the judgment and order dated 19.12.2007, passed by the Division Bench of this Court (supra) which is as under :

“5. Based on this notification, the State Government moved an application that the parties of the writ petitions are satisfied and the writ petitions, therefore, be dismissed. When the matter was heard by this Court on the last date, Mr. Singh pointed out that the G

































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top