SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 1595

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, VINOD DIWAKAR, JJ.
Amit Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Criminal misc. Writ petition no.14702 of 2023, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.14706 of 2023
Decided on : 13-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shiv Sagar Singh
For the Respondent: Sanjay Kumar Yadav

The court emphasized that valid sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is essential for prosecution, and failure to disclose material facts by petitioners undermines their claim.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19 - Writ petition to quash sanction order for prosecution - Petitioners alleged to have facilitated corruption in awarding contracts - CBI's request for sanction under Section 19 upheld despite previous charge-sheets not naming petitioners - Court emphasized the need for clean hands in approaching writ jurisdiction. (Paras 2, 11, 45, 46)

(B) Sanction for Prosecution - Importance of valid sanction - Court reiterated that no cognizance can be taken against public servants without prior sanction under Section 19 - Court held that failure to disclose material facts by petitioners undermines their plea. (Paras 24, 27, 48)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the sanction order for prosecution issued by the Uttar Pradesh government, alleging that the CBI's request was unwarranted and that they were not named in previous charge-sheets, despite serious allegations of corruption against them in the awarding of contracts.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to disclose how they obtained the sanction order, which was marked confidential, and ruled that the prosecution could proceed based on substantial evidence.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the sanction for prosecution and whether the petitioners approached the court with clean hands.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a valid sanction is crucial for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the petitioners' lack of disclosure regarding the acquisition of the sanction order undermines their position.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Vinod Diwakar, J.

1. Heard Shri Manish Gupta along with Shri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the CBI.

2. Pursuant to the issuance of the impugned Sanction Order[Sanction for Prosecution bearing No.5107(1)/77/4/23-27N/20T.C, Lucknow dated 24.8.2023 issued by the Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh]hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’), the petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash and set aside the impugned order granting sanction for the petitioners’ prosecution in the case registered as RC/DST/2015/A/004/STB/DLI by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) upon the High Court’s direction.

3. In order to decide the contentions raised in these petitions, succinct facts are imperative to arrive at a just and reasonable conclusion within the given factual context. For the sake of convenience, the salient facts are delineated as follows:

4. The core of the accusations emanates from the initial FIR registered on 13.1.2012 as Case Crime No.280 of 2012, invoking sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 469, 471 and 120-B IPC read with sections 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at P.S. Sector-39 NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh by the local police. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID), Meerut, for an impartial and unbiased investigation; upon completion of the investigation, the CBCID submitted its final report before the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST), Gautam Budh Nagar, which was accepted on 27.11.2014.

5. The closure report was challenged before the High Court and in pursuance to the order dated 16.7.2015 passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Misc. Bench No.12396 of 2014, the STF Branch of CBI re-registered an FIR bearing Case No. RC/DST/2015/A/004 on 30.7.2015 against Yadav Singh, the then Chief Engineer, NOIDA/Greater Noida and Yamuna Express Authority and other unknown persons, under section 120-B IPC read with sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 469 and 471 IPC read with section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CBI was directed to conduct an investigation into the allegations of corruption and illicit accumulation of money to Rs. 954 Crores by Yadav Singh, other accused persons and entities connected thereto in the award of contracts.

6. Against this backdrop, the CBI took over the investigation and concluded the first phase of investigation on 15.3.2016, and accordingly filed the charge-sheet against Rajeev Kumar (JE), R.D. Sharma (JE), Ompal Singh (JE), Devi Ram Arya (Assistant Project Engineer), Jashpal Singh (Assistant Project Engineer), Ramendra (Project Engineer) and Yadav Singh (Chief Mechanical Engineer) and other private accused persons for commission of offences under section 120-B read with sections 420, 109, 468, 471 IPC and section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CBI concluded the investigation with the finding “that the further investigation in the instant case is still continuing”, and if any new evidence emerged against any of the above-mentioned accused persons or any other, a supplementary charge-sheet along with the additional list of witnesses and/or documents, if any, will be filed in due course with the permission of this Court.”

7. The investigation culminated with the revelation that Junior Engineers, within their respective jurisdictions, prepared rough estimates by quoting exorbitant rates against the department’s interests. The Project Engineer and Assistant Project Engineer knowingly transmitted these rough estimates to higher authorities, contravening the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) manual for financia

                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                  1
                  2
                  3
                  4
                  5
                  6
                  7
                  8
                  9
                  10
                  11
                  SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                  supreme today icon
                  logo-black

                  An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                  Please visit our Training & Support
                  Center or Contact Us for assistance

                  qr

                  Scan Me!

                  India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                  For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                  whatsapp-icon Back to top