Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 964
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
SHEEL NAGU, J.
Vinay Kumar - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondents
Cri. Rev. No. 365 of 2012 Connected With Cri. Rev. No. 969 of 2013
Decided On : 10-8-2017
For the Petitioners: Shri R.K. Sharma, Shri M.K. Chaudhary and Shri Imran Khan
For the Respondent-EOW: Shri Sushil Chaturvedi
Competence of the authority granting sanction for prosecution and prima facie evidence of conspiracy and forgery punishable u/Ss. 120-B, 465 and 471 of I.P.C.
Headnote:
Sanction for Prosecution - Criminal Conspiracy - Sec. 397 Cr.P.C. - Ss. 120-B, 465 and 471 of I.P.C. - Adhiniyam 2011 - Sec. 13(1)(e) of the PC Act - Sec. 19(1)(c) of the PC Act - Competent Authority - Forgery - Mens Rea
Fact of the Case:
The case involves allegations of forgery and criminal conspiracy against the petitioners, who are accused of proposing allotment of land at a lower rate for personal gain. The issue of competence of the authority granting sanction for prosecution is raised.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the State Govt. was competent to grant sanction for prosecution, satisfying the requirement of Sec. 19(1)(c) of the PC Act. The material brought on record by the prosecution prima facie indicated a strong suspicion of the offence of conspiracy and forgery punishable u/Ss. 120-B, 465 and 471 of I.P.C. against the petitioners.
Issues: The issues involved the competence of the authority granting sanction for prosecution and the prima facie evidence of conspiracy and forgery against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the State Govt. was competent to grant sanction for prosecution, and the material brought on record by the prosecution indicated a strong suspicion of the offence of conspiracy and forgery punishable u/Ss. 120-B, 465 and 471 of I.P.C. against the petitioners.
Final Decision: The revisions failed and were dismissed.
Sheel Nagu, J.
1. This order shall govern disposal of Cri. Rev. No. 365/12 (Vinay Kumar Vs. State of M.P.) and Cri. Rev. No. 969/13 (A.K. Bansal Vs. State of M.P.).
2. The revisional powers of this Court u/S. 397 Cr.P.C. are invoked to assail framing of charge against the petitioners by the impugned order dated 7/5/2012 in Sessions Case No. 2/2002 alleging offences punishable u/Ss. 120-B, 465 and 471 of I.P.C.
3. Facts giving rise to the present case are that the petitioner Vinay Kumar being Assistant Engineer and petitioner A.K. Bansal being Revenue Inspector at Municipal Council, Morena (M.P.) are implicated in the offence of forgery and criminal conspiracy for having jointly moved a note-sheet proposing allotment of 22,600 sq. ft. of land reserved for stadium, for the purpose of allotment of plots under Awaas Grah Yojna for the employees of Municipal Council, Morena at a rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. which was much lower to the prevailing market value and by wrongly mentioning that the land is not required for the purpose of stadium. It is further alleged that the petitioner would have also been one of the beneficiaries of the said proposal.
4. After lodging of the FIR, investigation was conducted. The sanction for prosecution was obtained from the State and charge-sheet was filed wherein charges have been framed as enumerated above which are under challenge.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has raised preliminary objection as to maintainability of this petition on the ground that the present revision is not maintainable as a trial in relation to the offences in question is exclusively triable by the courts constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Vishesh Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 2011 (for brevity Adhiniyam 2011).
5.1 The said preliminary submission of the State is being considered to be rejected at the very outset as Sec. 2(e) of the Adhiniyam 2011 clearly provides that the offences contemplated under the Adhiniyam are those which either independently attract Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short the PC Act) or in combination with any other provision of the PC Act or any of the provisions of the I.P.C. Provision of Sec. 2(e) is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience.
“2(e) "offence" means an offence of criminal misconduct which attracts application of Section 13(l) (e) of the Act either independently or in combination with any other provision of the Act or any of the provision of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860);
5.2 A bare perusal of the above definition of “offence” makes it clear that the Adhiniyam 2011 comes into operation only when the offence u/S. 13(1)(e) independently or in combination with other provision of the PC Act or any provision of the IPC is alleged in any case and not otherwise. In the instant case, Sec. 13(1)(e) of the PC Act has not been alleged against the petitioners who in fact are charged with offences punishable u/Ss. 120-B, 465 and 471 of I.P.C.
5.3 At this juncture, it is relevant to deal with the feeble attempt of the learned counsel for the prosecution-respondent to contend that the expression “.................or any other provision of I.P.C.” found in the definition of offence S. 2(e) of 2011 Adhiniyam should be read to include even those offences of criminal misconduct which attract the provision of I.P.C. simplicitor. This argument holds no water as a close scrutiny of the definition of “offence” u/S. 2(e) makes it clear that presence of allegation under Sec. 13(1)(e) is an essential ingredient to constitute offence defined in section 2(1)(e) and thereby attract Adhiniyam 2011. The expression “---------or any of the provisions of the I.P.C.” found in Sec. 2(e) is to be read in conjunction in the following manner:-
“................offence of criminal misconduct which attracts application of Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Act either independently or in combination with........any of the provisions of I.P.C.”
5.4 If the contention of the learned counsel for the St
