Allahabad High Court
Vishnu Pratap Singh vs The State Of U.P And Anr. on 28 July, 2017
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?AFR
Court No. - 9
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 4033 of 2012
Applicant :- Vishnu Pratap Singh
Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- P. Chakravarty,Anuj Tandon
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri P. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.D.Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned FIR as well as material brought on record.
This 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet and cognizance order dated 31.7.2010 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Case No.929 of 2010, under Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Brief facts of the case are that; a first information report was lodged on 31.10.2009 at Police Station Ghughter, District Barabanki on a complaint made by one Ashok Kumar Singh, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fatehpur, District Barabanki against one Ritesh Gupta and Branch Manager (the petitioner) and Field Officer of Aryavrat Gramin Bank, Ghughter, Barabanki under Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (here-in-after referred to as 'the Act') regarding the demand of illegal gratification from one localities in lieu of withdrawal of money from their KCC Loan Account. Few villagers of the Ghughter were allotted Kisan credit Card in respect of which their Loan Account was opened at Aryavrat Gramin Bank, Ghuther, Barabanki. It has been alleged by KCC holders that the Branch Manager, Field Officer and one Ritesh Gupta of concerned Bank used to demand 10% commission in lieu of releasing their loan amount from their KCC Loan Accounts. The KCC holders are said to have protested against the alleged demands of the Bank Officials and 14 KCC Holders have filed their respective affidavits to Sub Divisional manager, Fatehpur, District Barabanki complaining for the regular demands made by the said Bank officials. On the basis of the affidavits filed by the KCC holders, the Sub Divisional Manager reported the matter to the local police and subsequently police registered on 31.10.2009 against one Ritesh Gupta along with Branch Manager. The investigation of the case was carried out and charge sheet was submitted against the applicant and on the basis of the which the District and Sessions Judge, Barabanki vide order dated 31.7.2010 has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 7/13 of the Act.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is an public servant and during the period of alleged offence he was posed as Branch Manager in Aryavrat Gramin Bank, District Barabanki and has been named as an accused in the charge sheet. The only point canvassed by him is that after filing of the charge sheet without obtaining prior sanction for prosecution of the applicant under Section 19 of the Prevention of of Corruption Act, the trial Court has committed grave error by taking cognizance and issued process against the applicant, the present prosecution of the applicant is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, the present application is liable to be allowed by this Court on this ground alone. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his argument has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 88 (Central Officer Commanding, Rashrtriya Reliefs Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another), 2005 SCC (Cri) 1995 (State of Goa Vs. Babu Thomas) & also a judgment of this Court reported in 2008 (62) ACC 208 (Prabhat Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and Another).
Learned AGA on the other hand though has tried to justify the order taking cognizance on the basis of charge sheet against the applicant, but he could not dispute the fact that prior sanction for prosecution of the applicant under Section 19 of the Act has not been obtained by the competent authority before taking of the cognizance on the charge sheet by the trial Court.
Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is an admitted that the applicant is a public servant and at the relevant point of time when the alleged offence was committed, the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager in Aryavrat Gramin Bank, District Barabanki and it has been specifically stated by the applicant in paragraph nos. 10,12 & 14 of the application that no prior sanction has been obtained from the competent authority for prosecuting the applicant which is pre-requisite condition for taking cognizance under the Act and from paragraph nos. 6 & 7 of the affidavit filed by the learned AGA on behalf of the State, the said fact appears to have been admitted as it has been stated that no comments are needed.
As the required sanction under Section 19 of the Act has not been obtained from the competent authority for prosecution of the applicant under Section 7/13 of the Act which is pre-requisite condition in view of Section 19 of the Act, the order taking cognizance against the applicant is hereby quashed.
Accordingly, the present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed.
However, it will be open for the authorities to proceed against the applicant if required sanction is obtained from the competent authority against the applicant in view of Section 19 of the Act.
Order Date :- 28.7.2017
NS
