RAM CHARAN MISRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by Ram Charan Misra applicant praying for quashing the chargesheet filed against the applicant vide special case No. 2 of 1988 u/s 161 I. P. C. and 5 (2) of Preven tion of Corruption Act State v. Ram Charan Misra pending in the court of VIIIth Additional Judge, Varanasi. 2. The case of the prosecution is that Ram Charan Misra was posted at Varanasi as Senior Supply Inspector. Complaint was made by Prem Narain Mehrotra to S. S. P. Vigilance, Varanasi by filing an application dated 15. 4. 86 alleging that Ram Charan Misra, applicant had demanded Rs. 1000. 00 from him as illegal gratification for submitting report in his favour regarding declaration of vacancy about shop No. 14/35, Nandan Shah Lane, Varanasi whereupon " the S. P. Vigilance deputed Dharam Narain Misra, Vigilance Inspector for laying the trap. Next day i. e. on 16. 4. 86, a trap was laid by Dharam Narain Misra at 12. 30 p. m. at the office of the applicant wherein Prem Narain Mehrotra had handed over the aforesaid bribe of Rs. 1000. 00 to the applicant who had accepted the same. The vigilance Inspector Sri Dharam Narain Misra shortly thereafter appeared on the scene and after disclosing his identity he took the search of Ram Charan Misra and recovered the bribe money of Rs. 1000. 00 from the possession of the appli cant. The 'inspector prepared the recovery memo on the spot and kept the recovered bribe money of Rs. 1000. 00 in a sealed cover. Thereafter, Ram Charan Misra was arrested and was taken to the police station Kotwali, Varanasi where D. N. Misra lodged the report of the occurrence and on his report, the Head Constable prepared the chick report and a case was registered against the applicant u/sec. 161 IPC and also u/sec. 5 (2) of the Pre vention of Corruption Act against the appli cant. The accused was put behind the bars of the police station and the recovered amount of bribe of Rs. 1000. 00 was kept inside the Malkhana in a sealed cover. 3. The investigation followed and charge-sheet was submitted against the investigating officer in the court. 4. Notice was issued to the State by this court on 29. 1. 90 on the aforesaid application u/s 482 Cr. P. C. Counter affidavit was filed by Sri Shambhoo Narain Rai, Inspector U. P. Vigilance Establishment Sector, Varanasi Rejoinder affidavit was also filed by the petitioner. 5. Sri I. M. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant has pressed this application on the sole ground that the sanction order dated 22. 2. 88 for the prosecution of the applicant passed by the Commissioner Food and Civil Supplies U. P. Lucknow is illegal and bad in law. It was further submitted by him that the sanction order (Annexure 4) suffers from inherent infirmity inasmuch as that the sanctioning authority did not mention in the sanction order that he had accorded sanction for the prosecution of the applicant after looking into the first information report, case diary and other relevant materials. Moreover, there is no mention in the sanction order (Annexure 4) that relevant material of the case was placed before him at the time of passing of the said order. It was pointed out that in the sanction order it is mentioned that on 15. 4. 86 the applicant Ram Charan Misra had demanded a bribe of Rs. 1000. 00 from the complainant Prem Narain Mehrotra. However, looking into the F. I. R. (Annexure 2) it is mentioned therein that the applicant Ram Charan Misra had demanded bribe from Prem Narain Mehrotra on 10. 4. 86. The correctness of both the documents i. e. (Annexure 4) and (Annexure 2 ). Annexed by the petitioner has not been challenged in the counter affidavit filed by the vigilance Inspector. Under the circum stance, I also feel that Sri G. Ganesh, Commis sioner Food and Civil Supplies U. P. Lucknow had accorded the sanction without application of his mind and in the absence of relevant material of the case being place before him, the said sanction order dated 22. 2. 88 is invalid. 6. The learned counsel has placed reliance on RS Navak v. A. R. Antulay 1984 SCC (Crl.) 172. wherein it was held "a grant of sanction is not an idle formality but a solemn act which removes protection against frivolous prosecutions. Therefore, the authority entitled to grant sanction must apply its mind to the facts of the case, evidence collected and other incidental facts before according sanction. The removal authority alone would be able when facts and evidence are placed before him, the Judge whether a serious offence is committed or the prosecution is frivolous or speculative". 7. It was further held, the policy underlying section 6 and similar sections, is that there should not be unnecessary harassment of public servants. The object is to save the public servant from the harassment of fri volous or unsubstantiated allegations. Exis tence thus of a valid sanction is a pre-requisite to the taking of cognizance of the offence. In the absence of such sanction the court would have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences. A trial without a valid sanction where one is necessary under section 6 is a trial without jurisdiction by the court". 8. The learned counsel further placed reliance on 1979 4 S. C. C. 172 wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that in the absence of any valid sanction the whole prosecution case is vitiated. The learned counsel also relied upon Raghuvir Singh v. State of Haryana, 1974 4 SCC 56 where it was held that infirmity in the sanction vitiates the prosecution case". 9. I have also heard Sri N. S. Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the State. 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am fully satisfied that the sanction granted by the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, U. P. Lucknow, suffers from numerous infir mities and it is not at all a valid sanction. It was accorded by the sanctioning authority without application of its mind and also without looking into the relevant material pertaining to the case. 11. In view of the decisions cited above and also the sanction granted being invalid. I quash the charge sheet and proceedings in the said case No. 2 of 1988 u/s 161 I. P. C. and U/s 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act pending against Ram Charan Misra, applicant in the court of VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi. Allowed .