Back
2015 Supreme(All) 2047
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.
Ranendra Pal Singh and Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. - Respondent
Criminal Revision No.50 of 2015; Criminal Revision No.49 of 2015; Criminal Revision No.51 of 2015; Criminal Revision No.90 of 2015; Criminal Revision No.91 of 2015; Criminal Revision No.92 of 2015; Criminal Revision No.93 of 2015; Criminal Revision No.95 of 2015; Criminal Revision No.99 of 2015; Criminal Revision No.121 of 2015; Criminal Revision No.127 of 2015; Criminal Revision No.162 of 2015
Decided On : 28-05-2015
For the Petitioner: Sri P. Chakravarty, Vinod Kumar Shahi, Mithila Bakhsh Tiwari, Satendra Kumar (Singh), Abhishek Misra, Qazi Sabihur Rahman, Mohd. Ali Shaf Faruqi, Rajesh Misra, Sayed Weqar Husain, Aftab Ahmad, Manjeet Singh.
For the Respondents: AGA.
Headnote:
Criminal Revisions - Summoning of Accused under Section 319, Cr.P.C. - Sections 409, 120-B IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 319, Cr.P.C., Sections 409, 120-B IPC, Section 362, Cr.P.C., Section 19(1) of PC Act, Section 197, Cr.P.C., Section 132 of Evidence Act - The court discussed the application of Section 319, Cr.P.C. and its implications, the doctrine of res judicata, issue estoppel, and the protection of witnesses under Section 132 of the Evidence Act. The court also considered the necessity of prosecution sanction under Section 19(1) of PC Act and Section 197, Cr.P.C. in summoning the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge to the summoning order passed under Section 319, Cr.P.C. against several accused persons in a corruption case. The accused were alleged to have embezzled funds by violating financial norms, and the prosecution moved to summon the accused based on evidence adduced during the trial. The accused challenged the summoning order on various grounds, including the conclusion of the trial for other co-accused, the rejection of a previous application under Section 319, Cr.P.C., and the lack of prosecution sanction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the summoning order under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was not rendered inoperative by the conclusion of the trial for other co-accused. It also held that the rejection of a previous application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. did not preclude the subsequent application. The court discussed the application of the doctrine of res judicata and issue estoppel, and the protection of witnesses under Section 132 of the Evidence Act. It also considered the necessity of prosecution sanction under Section 19(1) of PC Act and Section 197, Cr.P.C. in summoning the accused.
Issues: The issues included the effect of the conclusion of the trial for other co-accused on the summoning order, the application of res judicata and issue estoppel, and the necessity of prosecution sanction under Section 19(1) of PC Act and Section 197, Cr.P.C. in summoning the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the summoning order under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was not rendered inoperative by the conclusion of the trial for other co-accused. It also discussed the application of the doctrine of res judicata and issue estoppel, and the protection of witnesses under Section 132 of the Evidence Act. The court also considered the necessity of prosecution sanction under Section 19(1) of PC Act and Section 197, Cr.P.C. in summoning the accused.
Final Decision: The court allowed all the revisions and set aside the impugned summoning order. The matter was remanded back to the trial court for reconsideration of the application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. and for fresh orders to be passed after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned.
Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.
By means of the aforesaid criminal revisions, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., the order dated 07.02.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, in Criminal Case No.4-B of 2012 (State of U.P. Vs. Ram Kishore Mishra and others) arising out of Case Crime No.64 of 2012 has been challenged whereby the application under Section 319 , Cr.P.C. moved by the prosecution has been allowed and all the named petitioners were summoned under Sections 409, 120-B IPC to face the trial.
2. The accused persons, who have been summoned by the learned Special Judge under Section 319 , Cr.P.C., are as under:
1. Ram Kishore Mishra, the then Executive Engineer, LACCFED.
2. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Engineer, LACCFED
3. Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Engineer, LACCFED
4. Ranendra Pal Singh, Engineer, LACCFED
5. Pramod Kumar Singh, Engineer, LACCFED
6. Satyendra Bahadur Singh, Engineer, LACCFED
7. Prabhat Kumar Bajpai, Engineer, LACCFED
8. Awadhesh Kumar, Engineer, LACCFED
9. Pranai Kumar Tripathi, Engineer, LACCFED
10. Sushil Kumar Ojha, Engineer, LACCFED
11. Omkar Singh, Engineer, LACCFED
12. Neeraj Khare, Engineer, LACCFED
13. Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, Engineer, LACCFED
14. Siddhi Nath Rai, Engineer, LACCFED
3. All the aforesaid accused persons challenged the impugned summoning order passed under Section 319 , Cr.P.C. by means of the aforesaid criminal revisions. As all the criminal revisions are arising out of same order in same case and almost similar questions of law and facts are involved, hence, the aforesaid criminal revisions are being decided by this common judgment and order.
4. Brief facts for deciding these criminal revisions are that a first information report has been lodged by Sri P.N. Singh Yadav, General Manager, Uttar Pradesh, Labour and Construction Co-operative Federation Limited (In short 'LACCFED'), 29 Kabir Margh, Lucknow against Govind Saran Srivastava, Chief Engineer and Anil Kumar Agrawal Accountant for embezzlement of Rs.12.36 crores by violating the financial norms. The first information report was lodged on the basis of inspection report. It was alleged in the FIR that LACCFED was nominated by Government of Uttar Pradesh as Government constriction agency to carry out the constructions of standard building costing to the extent of Rs.5.00 crores on the basis of standard prescribed and for construction of non-standard buildings costing to the extent of Rs.2.5 crores. In pursuance thereof, several department of the State Government allocated work to LACCFED and for the said purpose money was provided for completing the project. To complete the project, the cheuqes required to have been issued to the concerned Engineers, which must be account payee. However, by violating the financial norms and rules, Sri Govind Saran, the Chief Engineer and Anil Kumar Jaiswal, Accountant issued bearer cheques in the name of 17 persons named in the first information report. It was alleged that the bearer cheques be also issued without consent of those engineers in whose names the cheque purported to be issued. The engineers in whose names the cheques were issued when asked whether they have received the cheques? They denied the receipt of cheques. It was also alleged that for issuing these cheques, the approval was given by Sri Govind Saran Srivastava, the then Chief Engineer, who retired later on. The allegations made in the first information report are that the named persons actually received the money under the aforesaid cheques and misappropriate the same. The other financial irregularities were also pointed out. The matter was investigated and charge-sheet was filed not only against the named persons in the FIR but also against some of the Ministers of the State Government and other persons. The trial was proceeded and when the same was listed for delivery of judgment, an application under Section 319 , Cr.P.C. has been moved by the prosecution to summon the revisionists on the basis of evidence
