IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of prior sanction for prosecution of public servants under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a critical procedural requirement, and failure to comply renders the prosecution invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Shamim Ahmed, J.

1. Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, Advocate assisted by Sri Saurabh Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ajay Kumar Agnihotri, learned A.G.A. alongwith Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.319 of 2015 (State Vs. Awadhu Ram & Others), under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 arising out of Crime No.102/2014, Police Station Husainganj, District Lucknow, investigated by CIS(1) CB CID, Lucknow pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (P.C. Act), Lucknow as well as to quash the cognizance/summoning order dated 08.09.2015.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has filed a supplementary affidavit on 17.05.2024 in the Court, which was taken on record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the present matter pertains to the appointment of Junior Clerks in the Office of the Engineer-in- Chief and Circle cadre of the Irrigation Department in the year 2008. The applicants were merely members of the Selection Committee constituted for this purpose.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the selection procedure comprised two stages: a typing test and an interview. The applicants had no role in conducting or evaluating the typing test, which was conducted by experts from the Directorate of Technical Education and Employment and Training Department, Lucknow.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the interview was conducted as per the Uttar Pradesh Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group 'C' Post Rules, 2003. The applicants had no role in evaluating the educational and sports qualifications of the candidates, which was done by a Sub-Committee.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the final results were compiled based on the typing test results provided by the experts and the interview conducted by the Selection Committee. The applicants performed their duties in accordance with the rules and have not committed any wrong.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that two inquiries were conducted by Mr. Radha Charan and Mr. A.N. Gupta in 2011 and 2012 respectively and they did not assign any specific role or criminal conspiracy to the applicants. Copies of the Enquiry Reports dated 14.11.2011 and 11.10.2012 are annexed as Annexures No. 11 and 14 respectively alongwith the affidavit filed in support of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the applicants herein are law-abiding senior citizens, retired from the Irrigation Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, with unblemished service records. The Applicant No. 1 retired as Chief Engineer on 31.12.2014 whereas the Applicant No. 2 retired as Superintending Engineer on 30.04.2009.

10. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the prosecution has failed to produce any material evidence against the applicants and the cognizance taken by the Court of Learned Special Judge (P.C. Act), Lucknow, is without sanction for prosecution as required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for Mr. Awadhu Ram, who is still a public servant. The allegations in the Police Report (Chargesheet) do not constitute any prima facie offence against the applicants and are absurd and inherently improbable.

11. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that by the order dated 08.09.2015 cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on printed proforma without assigning any reason is abused of process of law.

12. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that after submission of charge sheet the applicants have been summoned mechanically by order dated 08.09.2015 and the learned trial court while summoning the applicants had materially erred and did not follow the dictum of law as propou