The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of prosecution sanction for a public servant and the requirement of prima facie evidence to frame charges under the mentioned sections.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Kumar Singh-I J.

1. Heard Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. By means of this revision the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 04.08.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Meerut whereby charges have been framed, consequent upon the order dated 21.07.2018 whereby the discharge application has been dismissed in Special Criminal Case No. 97 of 2016 (CB No. 481/1998, Case No.0600001 of 2011) (State vs. Mukesh Kumar Singhal) arising out of FIR No. 92 of 1998 registered at P.S. Khurja Dehat, Bulandshahar under sections 420/409/218/120B/201/467/468/471 IPC .

3. It appears from the impugned order dated 21/07/2015 that as per prosecution case, the revisionist was functioning as branch manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce at the relevant point of time, that is, from 1997–1998 and that in collusion with The co-accused with a view to obtaining financial gain by way of helping certain persons obtain compensation amount illegally in prosecution of criminal conspiracy he was instrumental in preparation of several forged documents & in opening of several bank accounts in a forged manner which were later on closed after withdrawal of the amount of compensation credited in those accounts. An FIR was got registered by the informant Ram Charan Singh in this regard being crime no. 92 of 1998 under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 218 and 120 B IPC at PS Khurja, District Bulandshahar against the revisionist and some other accused persons, wherein, after investigation, charge sheet was submitted under all the afore-mentioned sections. The presiding officer of the trial court was presented an application 55 Kha under section 227 Cr. P.C. by the revisionist for being discharged, which has been dismissed by impugned order dated 21/07/2018 and the charges have been framed against the revisionist vide order dated 04/08/2018

4. It is recorded in the impugned order dated 21/07/2018 that in this matter earlier the learned presiding officer had framed charges against the applicant and other co-accused under afore-mentioned sections vide order dated 14/9/2015, which was challenged by the accused in proceedings under 482 Cr. P.C. being case no. 12734 of 2016, in which the charges were quashed because it was held that the said court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

5. The main emphasis laid in the application 55 Kha was that the prosecution could not have been initiated against the applicant pursuant to the filing of charge-sheet dated 17/10/2011 because no sanction for prosecution was obtained from the competent authority. It is further mentioned that by the prosecuting agency, charge-sheet dated 28/09/2009 pertaining to crime no. 92/1998 under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 218, 120 B IPC was sent to the Asstt. General Manager (HRD), Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi for seeking sanction to prosecute the applicant which was responded by letter dated 19/01/2010 of Asst General Manager declining the sanction, which was evident from Parcha dated 09/03/2011 of the case diary, therefore the prosecution against the applicant was not maintainable. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that the Crime Branch had sent another letter dated 03/02/2011 to the bank for securing sanction to prosecute the applicant but again the same was declined vide letter dated 23/02/2011. It was argued before the trial court that in the light of law laid down in T. S. Ramaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 CrLJ 545 and several other case laws, it was established position of law that prosecution sanction was necessary to be obtained before prosecuting a public servant for an act committed during discharge of his official duty.

6. The trial court made it clear in its order that in proceedings under sections 5 of the PC Act it would require to move an applic