2013 Supreme(All) 287
[2013(3) ADJ 113]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUNIL HALI, J.
Dr. ARUN KUMAR CHOWDHARY .....Applicant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Opposite Parties
(Criminal Misc. Application No. 43696 of 2012, decided on 24th January, 2013)
Counsel :
V.C. Mishra and Vivek Mishra for the Applicant; A.G.A., Anurag Khanna and N.I. Jafri for the Opposite Parties.
Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Sections 19, 13(1) and 13(1) (d)—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 197 and 191-B—(Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420—Sanction—Cognizance—While taking cognizance under Section 191-B of Cr.P.C.—Magistrate is to issue process only for offences which reflected in charge-sheet—Whether there was violation of Section 197 of Cr.P.C.—In view of Apex Court once sanction accorded Section 19 of Act read with Section 13(1) and 13(1) (d) of Act, where is Special Act—No further sanction is required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.—No illegality in impugned order taking cognisance. [Paras 8 and 9]
Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—Heard Sri V.C. Misra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vivek Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the C.B.I.
2. The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 8.11.2012 passed by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, C.B.I. Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial NO. 16/12 (C.B.I. v. Chandrajeet Yadav and others).
Two fold submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the applicant;
(a) that while taking cognisance under Section 191-B Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is to issue process only for the offences which have been reflected in the charge-sheet.
(b) that cognisance has been taken in violation of Section 197 Cr.P.C. as no sanction was granted to prosecute the applicant for having committed offences under Sections 407, 468 and 471 IPC.
3. From the perusal of the allegations contained in the charge-sheet the applicant can only be found to be negligent and not having committed mis-conduct as defined under Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation, in brief, as mentioned in the FIR is that during investigation of the case, Case crime No. 115 of 2011, Police Station Wazirganj, Lucknow, relating to murder of two Chief Medical Officers of department of Family Welfare, Lucknow by U.P. Police, it transpired that the funds allotted for the National Rural Health Mission (in short NRHM) have been rampantly misused by Sri A.K. Shukla, Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow, Dr. Y.S. Sachan, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Family Welfare and other officials/officers in connivance with contractors and firms by way of making fraudulent reimbursement claims relating to hiring of vehicles, man power and purchase of medicines etc. The specific allegation against the applicant is that he was working as Additional Chief Medical Officer.
4. The investigation has revealed that so far as the process of approval for payments in respect of these activities is concerned, all the bills/vouchers in respect of above mentioned activities at the Chief Medical Officer level are submitted to the Clerk/Accountant. He verifies the vouchers in respect of amount, the availability of the fund and whether the bill is as per PIP and submits the same to the second signatory for approval. Chief Medical Officer and Administrative officer/District Health Education Information Officer (DHEIO)/Additional Chief Medical Officer/Deputy Chief Medical Officer, NRHM are the joint signatories for all payments/disbursements at district level. The second signatory signs on the vouchers and cheques and submits it further for the final signature of the Chief Medical Officer. The Chief Medical Officer finally signs on the voucher and the cheque. Thereafter, the cheque is given to the party by the accountant. All such payments at the district level are to be made through Account Payee Cheques. The second signatory and the first signatory are responsible equally in respect of passing of any bill. Both the signatories have to ensure that bills (Transport Bills) have been verified by the users, i.e. Superintendent of Balmahila Chikitsalaya, Community Health center, Additional Chief Medical Officer, Urban or any authority who has utilized the vehicle for official purpose. Both the Signatories are also responsible to ensure that the bills reflect the ambulance number and the vehicle number. It is revealed from the charge-sheet that the applicant was functioning as Additional Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow and was assigned the work of Second Signatory between 8.7.2007 to 12.8.2009 and has passed 27 bills as second signatory without ensuring that the bills contained the vehicle number and the enclosed log book reflect the vehicle numbers supplied by the contractor M/s. Om Raj Enterprises.
5. After conclusion of the enquiry, the matter was referred to the State Government for grant of sanction. The sanction was granted by His Excellency the Governor on 20.8.2012. The order of sanction ref