IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.
Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi @ M.P.R. Tripathi - Applicant
Versus
State Through C.B.I./Acb Lucknow - Opposite Party
Application U/S 482 No. 633 of 2018
Decided On : 10-11-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120-B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 19(1),13(2), 13 (1)(d) – CCS (CCA) Rules, 1967 – Rule 12 – Criminal Case – Quashing of the prosecution – Demand of bribe – Petitioner had approached this Court earlier in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being petition with prayers – Held, Court is of firm view that communication is not a final order refusing sanction for prosecution of petitioner – There is only one order i.e. order granting sanction – Communication is internal correspondence and not an order, therefore, petitioner cannot take advantage of said communication to say that earlier competent authority had refused sanction for prosecution of petitioner – Order is not a second order but is only order of sanction for prosecution of petitioner – When tentative opinion was formed which is evident from communication at that time opinion of C.F.S.L. report about voice sample, communication between petitioner and co-accused etc., was not on record. C.B.I. after obtaining C.F.S.L. report has placed same before competent authority and competent authority thereafter issued order – Therefore, it cannot be said that order has been issued without application of mind or there has been non application of mind as has been submitted by learned Senior Advocate – Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the prosecution of the petitioner in Criminal Case No.117 of 2015, State through C.B.I. versus Shashi Mohan and Anr. under Section 120-B IPC, and Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "PC Act") pending before Special Judge, C.B.I., Court No.4, Lucknow.
Further prayer has been made for keeping the execution of the non-bailable warrant in abeyance till disposal of the present petition.
2. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being petition No.116 of 2018 with the following prayers:-
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate order for keeping the execution of non bailable warrant in abeyance till the disposal of the pending Application for dropping of petitioner's prosecution/discharge on the ground of invalid and illegal Sanction for Prosecution, so as to meet the ends of justice.
And/or this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass any other order or orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit & proper in the interest of justice."
3. The said petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2018 which reads as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to keep the execution and operation of the Non Bailable Warrants issued on 03.01.2018 against the applicant in Criminal Case No.117/2015 (State through C.B.I V.s Shashi Mohan and another) under Section 120-B I.P.C and Section 7 & 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Learned counsel for the applicant informed to this Court that said matter is listed on 24.01.2018 at learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Court No.4. Applicant is directed to appear before learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Court No. 4, Lucknow on the date fixed and till then Non Bailable Warrant dated 03.01.2018 is kept in abeyance.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of."
4. The petitioner was posted as Chief Executive Officer at Cantonment Board, Fatehgarh on 4th August, 2014. The instant case, RC0062015A0009 was registered by C.B.I./A.C.B., Lucknow on 9th May, 2015 against Shashi Mohan, Ward Member, Fatehgarh Cantonment Board, District Farrukhabad under Section 7 of the PC Act on the basis of complaint received from one Haider Ali working as Contractor with M/S Dilip Kumar. In the complaint, it was alleged that accused, Shashi Mohan had demanded an illegal gratification/commission/bribe of Rs.1,56,000/-from the complainant on behalf of the petitioner to process the payment for the work done by the contractor which was allotted to the contractor on 28.08.2014 in pursuance to the tendering process.
5. The complaint was marked to Mr. S.N. Srivastava. Inspector, C.B.I./A.C.B., Lucknow for verification which was discreetly verified on 9th May, 2015 in presence of independent witness, Ajit Kumar working as Office Superintendent, Office of ADEN, North Eastern Railway, Fatehgarh. During verification, the conversion held between the complainant and suspected person, Shashi Mohan was recorded in Digital Voice Recorder, transferred in CDs and marked as Q-1, which would disclose the demand of bribe by the accused, Shashi Mohan.
6. During verification of the complaint, verification memo of the verification proceedings and transcript of incriminating portion of the accused recorded was prepared mentioning that the accused, Shashi Mohan demanded bribe from the complainant of Rs.1,56,000/-on behalf of the petitioner. An additional demand of Rs.60,000/- was also made at the rate of Rs.20,000/- each on behalf of the three i.e. Shashi Mohan, Anwar Jamal whose wife Ms. Shama was a Ward Member and Shiv Kumar, whose daughter Ms Avanthi was also Ward Member.
7. On 10th M
State of Himanchal Pradesh vs Nishant Sareen
Nanjappa vs State of Karnataka
C.R. Bansi v. State of Maharashtra
Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad v. State of A.P.
S.A. Venkataraman v. State, AIR 1958 SC 107
K.S. Dharmadatan v. Central Government
Nanjappa vs State of Karnataka
State Inspector of Police vs Surya Sankaran Karri
Prakash Singh Badal & Anr vs State of Punjab & Ors
Dinesh Kumar v Airport Authority of India
Sethi Auto Service Station & Anr vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors
Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab
SupremeToday
Sanction for prosecution of public servants must reflect independent assessment; repeated refusals by the authority, absent new evidence, undermine legitimacy of prosecution.
The challenge to the order of sanction on the ground of improper application of mind or non-consideration of relevant material is required to be raised during trial and established by leading evidenc....
Point of law : Section 19(3) of the PC Act indicates that it deals with three situations: (i) Sub-Clause (a) deals a situation where a final judgment and sentence has been delivered by the Special Ju....
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.