Manoj Kumar Dwivedi vs State Of U.P. And Another
2015 Latest Caselaw 1395 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 43                                                                  AFR
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2053 of 2015
 
Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Dwivedi
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,B.D. Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
 

 
Connected with
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8434 of 2014
 
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Dwivedi
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,B.D. Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 

 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

1.Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2.Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

3.The revisionist by means of this revision has challenged the order dated 18.5.2015 passed by Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), district Gorakhpur in Special Sessions Trial No.1 of 2013 (State Vs. Manoj Kumar Dwivedi and others), u/s 7/13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 P.S. Dargah Sharif, district Bahraich whereby the discharge application No.24-Kha moved by the revisionist has been rejected.

4.The revisionist has also earlier filed the aforesaid 482 Cr.P.C. Application No.8434 of 2014 for quashing the entire proceedings of Special Trial No.1 of 2013 (State Vs. Manoj Kumar Dwivedi), arising out of Case Crime No.528 of 2011, u/s 7/13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 P.S. Dargah Sharif, district Bahraich pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge/Special Judge (Anti Corruption), District Gorakhpur including charge sheet dated 25.1.2013 filed in aforesaid case as well as Sanction order dated 5.12.2012 passed by Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

5.As both the aforesaid matters are connected with each other, hence the both are being decided by this common judgment.

6.The brief facts of the case are that the FIR has been lodged against the revisionist by opposite party no.2 Sri Govind Prasad which was registered as Case Crime No.628 of 2011, u/s 7/13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 13.7.2011 at 19.40 hours with respect to an incident taken place on 13.7.2011 at 18 hours. As per allegations levelled in the FIR, the applicant was caught red handed at his house allegedly taking bribe of Rs.15,000/- by a trap party headed by S.P., U.P. Vigilance Department. The investigation of the case was carried out and charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist for the offence in question. The revisionist was granted bail by the competent court.

7.The Special Judge, (Anti-Corruption) took cognizance of the offence. Thereafter the discharge application was moved by the revisionist which was rejected by the trial court on 18.5.2015 fixing 30.5.2015 for framing of charge. Earlier to the present revision, the revisionist also filed a 482 Cr.P.C. Application before this Court praying that the entire proceedings of Special Trial No.1 of 2003 State Vs. Manoj Kumar Dwivedi arising out of Case Crime No.528 of 2011 u/s 7/13(1)(d)/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Dargah Sharif, district Bahraich including charge sheet dated 25.1.2013 in the said case as well as sanction order dated 5.12.2012 by which sanction for prosecution has been granted by the competent authority and on the said 482 Cr.P.C. Application on 26.3.2014 notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA was granted time to file counter affidavit. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State which is on record but no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the revisionist in the said case.

8.The only ground which has been canvassed by learned counsel for the revisionist is that the sanction for prosecution of the revisionist has not been given by the appropriate authority. The sanction for laying down the trap or to prosecute the revisionist, the previous sanction was to be obtained from the Chief Minister of the State and not from the Education Minister and the Principal Secretary Basic Education. Therefore there being no sanction by the competent authority on record, the entire proceedings against the revisionist are liable to be quashed on this ground alone. Moreover the learned Special Judge had also not considered the said fact and has rejected the discharge application by passing impugned order which is also liable to be quashed by this Court. He further argued that as per Uttar Pradesh Rules of Business 1975 framed in exercise of powers conferred under Article 166 of the Constitution of India provide that excluding the Gazetted Officer of Class-II proposal for dismissal, removal reduction in rank, suspension or compulsory retirement of any Gazetted Officer belonging to a State Service or of higher status are to be submitted to the Chief Minister. He submitted that in view of Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, previous sanction was necessary for prosecution of the revisionist from the competent authority. He urged that in view of Uttar Pradesh Rules of Business, 1975, the appropriate authority for granting sanction for prosecution of the revisionist is only the Chief Minister and not the Education Minister. It was argued that after lodging of the FIR, the revisionist was suspended and a departmental proceedings were initiated against him in which he was exonerated by the competent authority and reinstated in service. He has drawn attention of the Court towards the order dated 11.12.2013 by which the order dated 24.5.2012 when the revisionist was found not guilty of the charges levelled in the charge sheet as such the entire period of when he had not been posted in substantive post, he was given full service benefit. He submits that in the departmental proceedings the revisionist has been exonerated thereafter the criminal proceeding initiated against him on the same allegation is not permissible which is liable to be quashed by this Court.

9.Learned counsel for the revisionist has also relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court passed in the case of K Chandrashekara Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka By Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bellary in Crl. Appeal No.2573 of 2013 decided on 16.9.2014 in support of his arguments.

10.Learned AGA on the other hand has vehemently opposed the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist and stated that the revisionist being the Chairman, D.I.E.T was caught red-handed by the trap party headed by S.P. of the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Department which was formed in accordance with law by the orders of the State Government. During the course of investigation the charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist by the Vigilance Department on 25.1.2013 and the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption) on the basis of same has taken cognizance on 13.2.2013. The sanction for prosecution of the revisionist was also obtained from the competent authority as is evident from the sanction order dated 5.12.2012 which was passed under the orders of Hon'ble The Governor, by the Principal Secretary of the Education Department, U.P. Lucknow. He pointed out that the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the sanction was not given by the competent authority as per the Uttar Pradesh Rules of Business 1975 has no substance as the sanction was granted in accordance with law and it cannot be said that there was no approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister for granting sanction for prosecution of the revisionist. Hence the sanction under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for prosecuting the revisionist is valid one and trial court rightly taken cognizance of the offence and has summoned the revisionist for trial and further discharge application of the revisionist was rightly rejected by the trial court which does not call for any interference by this Court.

11.Learned AGA states that the case law cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist is distinguishable from the facts of the present case and has no relevance.

12.Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It appears from the record that the revisionist was posted as Chairman, D.I.E.T at the time of incident and trap was laid down by the Vigilance Department headed by S.P. of Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Department after obtaining required permission from the State Government and other authorities on the complaint made by the opposite party no.2 regarding demand of bribe as is evident from the FIR itself. Moreover, after investigation the charge sheet has been submitted against the revisionist by the Vigilance Department on 25.1.2013 in the Court of Special Judge, (Anti-Corruption), Gorakhpur. From the perusal of the order dated 5.12.2012 which has been annexed as annexure no.2 to the affidavit filed in support of the revision, it is clear that the sanction for prosecution of the revisionist was granted under the orders of Hon'ble The Governor by the Principal Secretary, Education Department, U.P. Lucknow. Hence the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that as per Uttar Pradesh Rules of Business 1975, the sanction has not been granted by the Chief Minister has no force and it appears that only to complicate the issue the said point has been raised by the revisionist to linger on the trial. It is noteworthy to mention here that the suspension order suspending the revisionist after the incident was also passed on 28.7.2011 by the competent authority by which Additional Director (Basic) Education was appointed as Inquiry Officer who served charge sheet against the revisionist on 29.11.2011 as is evident from the letter dated 22.12.2011 of the Additional Director (Basic) Education Department, Annexure no.4 to the accompanying affidavit. The revisionist submitted reply dated 24.12.2011 to the said Inquiry Officer and his suspension was revoked on 11.2.2013 under the orders of Hon'ble The Governor, by the Principal Secretary of Education Department, U.P. Lucknow. Copy of the same is annexed as annexure no.6 to the affidavit filed in support of the revision. It further appears from the order dated 24.5.2012 passed by the competent authority that the suspension of the revisionist was revoked subject to the final decision of the present criminal case by the Court. The copy of the said order is annexed as annexure no.7 to the accompanying affidavit.

13.The argument of learned counsel for the revisionist that as the revisionist has already been exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings, no criminal proceeding can be initiated has no force. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of 2014 ACC V-84 and State of N.C.T. Vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi SCC 2012 (9) 682 in which it has been held that simply because accused has been exonerated during the departmental proceedings, the criminal proceedings are not barred.

14.From the perusal of the orders dated 11.2.2013, 24.5.2012 and order dated 5.12.2012 it is apparent that the competent authority who has granted sanction of prosecution of the revisionist is the same which has revoked his suspension and reinstated him in service. Hence there appears to be a valid sanction for prosecuting the revisionist. Thus, the order passed by the trial court in rejecting the discharge application, does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error, hence no interference is required by this Court.

15.The present revision lacks merit and is, accordingly dismissed.

16.So far as the aforesaid 482 Cr.P.C. application filed by the revisionist is concerned, there appears to be no ground for quashing the impugned charge sheet or the proceedings based on the same nor there is any ground for quashing of the sanction order dated 5.12.2012, hence the present 482 Cr.P.C. application is also dismissed as no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of it's inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

17.The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same preferably within the period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before the trial court without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties if there is no legal impediment.

22.07.2015

Gaurav