L.M. KHANNA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri B.Narain Singh and Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. For the State of U.P.

(2.) THIS application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant L.M. Khanna, with a prayer to quash the order dated 26.4.2010 passed by the learned C.J.M. Jaunpur in case no. 6720 of 2004 whereby the discharge application having additional prayer for doing further investigation under section 173(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected and the judgment and order dated 14.7.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge E.C.Act Jaunpur in criminal revision No. 220 of 2010 whereby the revision filed by the applicant has been dismissed.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was posted as Branch Manager, Union of India, by which the loan was sanctioned to Indra Dev Singh, the property was mortgaged, the loan was sanctioned after perusing the relevant documents, report submitted by the other authorities of the bank, the loan was sanctioned on the basis of the report submitted by the penal lawyer Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava and the identification report submitted by him and an affidavit submitted by Abu Sufiyan and his wife Nanhi Begum, their declaration was made before the Notary Advocate Sri P.K.Srivastava and without doing proper investigation and without collecting any cogent evidence against the applicant, the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant also whereas if any fraud or forgery has been committed it has been committed by some other persons. The applicant sanctioned the loan during the discharge of his official duties. Being a public servant the sanction was required under section 197 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance but without obtaining any sanction the learned magistrate concerned has taken cognizance on the charge sheet submitted by the I.O. According to the prosecution version itself applicant had apprised the first informant about the said incident and even on the basis of the material collected by the I.O. prima facie no offence under sections 406, 417, 418, 419, 420, 463, 467, 468, 409 I.P.C. is made out. The learned C.J.M. Jaunpur has committed manifest error by rejecting the discharge application filed by the applicant and the same error has been committed by the learned revisional court by dismissing the revision on 14.7.2011. The impugned orders dated 26.4.2010 and 14.7.2011 are illegal and the same may be quashed.