IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Sh. Mohd. Ali Zafar – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Ors – Respondent
Application U/s 482 No.13242 of 2019, Application U/s 482 No.30345 of 2021
Decided on : 14-03-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 – Criminal Proedure Code,1973 - Section 482 - Cantonment Funds Service Rules, 1937 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(2)/13(1)(d) - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Sections 5, 6 and 6A - Offence of Criminal Conspiracy – Cheating - Charged – Challenged - Petitioner, was posted as Veterinary Inspector and petitioner- was posted as Pharmacist/Compounder-cum-Store Keeper, Central Government Hospital, Meerut Cantt - Petitioner was also officiating on the post of Office Superintendent, Cantonment Board, Meerut at relevant time - Allegation that during years said entered into criminal conspiracy with petitioners and one and other unknown persons and in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy, she dishonestly and fraudulently purchased medicines at exorbitant rates in violation of prescribed procedure and norms and falsified accounts (medicine stock books) and fabricated relevant record - Whether without consent of State Government, C.B.I. would be empowered to exercise powers and jurisdiction in respect of an area under control of Cantonment Board - Whether there is an application of mind would depend on facts and circumstances of each case - There can be no dispute that an area falling under Cantonment is not an area under State Government and nor petitioners are employees of Central Government or appointed by Central Government in the Cantonment Board - There is no applicability of Section 6 or 6A of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 in the present case. [Para 28]
Finding of Court : Competence of Court tyring accused depends upon existence of a valid sanction - In case, sanction is found to be invalid, court can discharge accused, relegating parties to a stage where competent authority may grant a fresh sanction for prosecution in accordance with law - If trial court proceeds, despite invalidity attached to sanction order, same shall be deemed to be non est in eyes of law and shall not forbid a second trial for same offence upon grant of a valid sanction for such prosecution - Sanction order may be challenged on two grounds namely; sanction granted by an authority not competent to accord sanction. Such an order would be without jurisdiction and nullity - If there is an error, omission or irregularity in sanction order, same would not be fatal unless it has resulted in violation of justice - There is a distinction between the absence of sanction and the alleged invalidity on account of non-application of mind - Former question can be entertained at threshold but the latter is a question which has to be entertained during trial - It is not in dispute that in present case there is a sanction for prosecution of petitioners which has been granted by Board vide order dated - Whether there was material and evidence placed before authority to grant sanction which was refused earlier by order dated is a question which can be decided by trial court after leading evidence by prosecution and the defence - Court, does not find it appropriate to decide said issue on affidavits in these proceedings.
Result : Petitions dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pradeep S. Sisodia, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India, Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for C.B.I. and Sri Satish Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Cantonment Board.
2. Present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been instituted before this Court challenging the Charge-sheet No.1 of 2001 dated 07.02.2009 and summoning order dated 11.03.2019 passed by Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), C.B.I. Court No.3, Ghaziabad in Special Case No.2 of 2019 (C.B.I. vs Sukhjeevan Singh Chahal and Ors) under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and entire proceedings of Special Case No.2 of 2019 pending in the Court of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), C.B.I.
3. Petitioner, Mohd Ali Zafar was posted as Veterinary Inspector and petitioner-Sushil Kumar was posted as Pharmacist/Compounder-cum-Store Keeper, Central Government Hospital, Meerut Cantt. The petitioner, Mohd Ali Zafar was also officiating on the post of Office Superintendent, Cantonment Board, Meerut at the relevant time.
4. On the basis of a source information, a joint surprise check was conducted on 12.05.2015 and 13.05.2015 by a team of C.B.I., Ghaziabad, Ministry of Defence, Director General (Vigilance), Defence Estates, New Delhi and Drug Inspector, Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (C.D.S.C.O.) in the Cantonment General Hospital, Cantt Board, Meerut.
5. C.B.I. in the year 2015 had carried out a inspection of the Cantonment General Hospital, Meerut Cantt and finding gross irregularities registered a Regular Case No.RC1202016A0003 on 16.03.2016 at C.B.I./A.C.B., Ghaziabad under Sections 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’) against one Dr Aradhana Pathak, then Resident Medical Officer, posted at Cantonment General Hospital, Meerut Cantt and others on the allegation that during years 2011-14 said Dr Aradhana Pathak entered into criminal conspiracy with the petitioners and one Gaurav Arora, Prop. M/s Arora Pharma, Meerut, U.P. and other unknown persons and in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, she dishonestly and fraudulently purchased medicines at exorbitant rates in violation of prescribed procedure and norms and falsified the accounts (medicine stock books) and fabricated the relevant record.
6. During the investigation, role of one Sukhjeevan Singh Chahal, the then Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O.) Cantonment Board, Meerut Cantt. (since retired), petitioner-Mohd. Ali Zafar, the then Officiating Office Superintendent, Office of C.E.O., Cantonment Board, Meerut Cantt. came into light.
7. The C.B.I. after investigating the offence and collecting evidence and material, prepared impugned the charge-sheet under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477A IPC, 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the PC Act,1988 for causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.23,46,436/-to the Cantonment Board Meerut and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.
8. After carrying out a detailed investigation, the C.B.I. submitted a report and subsequently vide letter dated 23.08.2018 sought sanction for the prosecution of Dr. Aradhana Pathak, R.M.O. Cantt General Hospital, petitioner-Mohd. Ali Zafar, officiating Office Superintendent of Cantt. Board (both supervisory posts) and petitioner-Sushil Kumar Compounder cum Store Keeper of Cantt. General Hospital (non-supervisory staff).
9. Cantonment Board vide C.B.R. No.169 dated 15.11.2018 resolved by majority of vote that no sanction for prosecution of charged officials be given to the C.B.I., and the Board further resolved that departmental proceedings under the provisions of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 and CCS Rules be initiated against the charged officials namely Dr. Aradhana Pathak and Mohd Ali Zafar, for which a committee was constituted, and it was conveyed to the higher authorities of the Cantonment Board as well as
The distinction between 'consent' and 'sanction' under the DSPE Act was clarified, emphasizing that consent does not require a detailed order or application of mind, and the principles of res judicat....
The CBI does not require State consent for jurisdiction when the conspiracy is initiated outside the State, as established under Sections 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act.
State consent under DSPE Act prior to FIR registration validates CBI investigation despite earlier preliminary verification; no quashing of proceedings post charge-sheet and cognizance absent miscarr....
CBI investigation – Govt. orders according general consent to exercise powers and jurisdiction under DSPE Act against private persons for alleged offences whether acting separately or in conjunction ....
Sanction for prosecution of public servants must reflect independent assessment; repeated refusals by the authority, absent new evidence, undermine legitimacy of prosecution.
The requirement of prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act is essential for the prosecution of public servants, and failure to obtain it renders proceedings void unless it results in a ....
Jurisdiction of Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate offences – Consent of State Government can be accorded at any stage, even when extension of jurisdiction of CBI to the State is still un....
Lack of sanction for prosecution is not always fatal to case of prosecution.
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.