ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the respondents.

(2.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 09.08.2010, passed by Deputy Secretary, U.P. Government, Lucknow, whereby the Principal Secretary (Food and Civil Supplies) U.P. Government, has been requested to reconsider / review the earlier decision of sanction of prosecution, of the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner at relevant time was posted in different districts as District Supply Officer and was, thereafter, promoted as Deputy Commissioner (Food), District Bareilly, Agra and Kanpur Mandal. While he was posted as District Supply Officer at Meerut, between July, 1985 to June, 1986, it appears that during the year 1983 onwards, some forged coal licences were issued in favour of private persons. These licences became a subject matter of inquiry and with the approval of the competent authority, three First Information Reports were lodged by Economic Offences Wing (Police) under Sections 420/467/468/471/409/201 & 120-B at different police stations of Meerut. The three FIRs bearing nos. 194/1995, 201/1995 & 203/1995, were lodged on 25.05.1995, by the police (E.O.W.). The date of occurrences are shown as 08.08.1984, 06.02.1986 and 24.05.1995. It is alleged that during investigation, as nothing incriminating was found against the petitioner, hence, the Under Secretary of the State Government vide his order dated 08.04.2009, addressed to the D.I.G., Police (E.O.W.) Lucknow, apprised him that on the basis of materials collected by the Investigating Officer, sanction of prosecution cannot be granted against the petitioner. Although, the petitioner attained superannuation on 31.01.2010 as Deputy Commissioner (Food), Agra Division, Agra and has been getting his regular pension and other retiral benefits, yet an order dated 09.08.2010 has been issued by the Deputy Secretary of the State Government, apprising that in view of the report submitted by the Economic Offences Wing, sufficient evidence has been found against the petitioner and one Amrendra Nigam, the then District Supply Officer, and therefore the issue of sanction of prosecution be reviewed / reconsidered afresh.