ABHAY M.NAIK, BRIJ KISHORE DUBE
Harish Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
Abhay M. Naik, J.
1. This writ appeal has been preferred against an order dated 17-9-2008 passed in W.P. No. 4308/08 by the learned Single Judge of this Court holding thereby that Lokayukta has jurisdiction to enquire the cases against the Petitioner/Appellant under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Short facts involved herein are that Appellant is working as Tahsil Coordinator (Tahsil Sanyojak) in Gram Raksha Samiti, Gwalior. On receipt of complaint against him, Lokayukta set up a preliminary enquiry at Case No. 4/2008 on 9-7-2008. An FIR at Crime No. 23/2008 has been registered against the Petitioner/Appellant under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. W.P. No. 4308/08 was submitted on the ground that the Petitioner is not a public servant and this being so, Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to hold enquiry against him. Accordingly, enquiry proceedings and consequent FIR stand vitiated.
3. Learned Single Judge held that the Petitioner is a public servant as defined in M.P. Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 and accordingly Lokayukt has jurisdiction to enquire cases relating to Prevention of Corruption Act against th
1. S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation
2. Dr. S.L. Agarwal v. The General Manager
4. The State of Gujarat v. S.H. Manshankar Prabhashankar Dwivedi (1972) 2 SCC 392;
7. Naresh Kumar Madan v. State of M.P. (2007) 4 SCC 766;
8. M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India AIR 1979 SC 898;
9. Dr. Mrs. Gurjeewan Garewal v. Dr. Mrs. Sumitra Dash and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 2530;
10. Karunanidhis case AIR 1979 SC 898
3. R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay AIR 1984 SC 684 : (1984) 2 SCC 183;
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.