SABHAJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed by the applicant Sabhajeet Singh for quashing the entire proceedings in Special Case No. 6 of 1984, State v. Sabhajeet Singh, before the Sessions Court, Varanasi. 2, The facts giving rise to the present proceedings may be stated, in brief. The applicant was posted on the post of Sahayak Krishi Nirikshak (Grade III) and thereafter he worked as such in various districts and was promoted thereafter on the post of Dalhan Vikas Nirikshak (Grade II) in Varanasi and at present he is working on this post in Mirzapur. It is stated by the applicant that he was never posted or worked as supervisor at any place that no complaint was lodged against him that he worked very sincerely and that no departmental enquiry was initiated against him. It is further stated that one Janki Singh of his village harboured enmity with the applicant's family members and the said Janki Singh lodgd a complaint against the applicant under Section 409, I. P. C. read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with bad motive. Copy of the said complaint is Annexure A-1 to the affidavit of the applicant. It is further stated that the Superintendent of Police, U. P. (Satarkata Adhisthan), Varanasi by his letter dated 17-7-1984 asked the Director of Agriculture, U. P. , Lucknow for sanction to prosecute the applicant. The copy of the aforesaid letter dated 17-7-1984 is Annexure No, A-' to the affidavit of the applicant It is also alleged that neither the Government of U. P. , nor the Director of Agriculture had granted sanction to prosecute the applicant in accordance with law and the court has taken cognizance on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted before the Sessions Court. The copy of the said charge-sheet is Annexure-A. 3 to the affidavit of the applicant. It is further stated that the bare reading of the charge- sheet goes to show that the alleged enquiry under Section 4c9,1. P. C. is not com plete and thus the charge-sheet has been submitted illegally. It is further alleged that the applicant has never been found guilty or negligent by any authority of his Department and as such the proceedings before the trial court on the complaint of a private person is not maintainable. 3. I have heard Sri D. S. P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondent at considerable length. Sri D. S. P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant has mainly advanced two-fold arguments. Firstly, that no sanction has been granted by the competent court and secondly that the sanction has been granted mechanically and without application of mind. Sri D, S, P. Singh argued that the complaint was lodged by Janki Singh, a private person. Being Pattidar and inimical he had tiled the said complaint with wrong motive and that be was instrumental in obtaining the sanction from the Director of Agriculture U. P. Lucknow. Next, it was argued that the report dated 30-7-1984 of the Inspector, U. P. Vigilence Adhisthan, Varanasi itself goes to show that the investigation as regards the alleged offence under Section 409,1 P. C. has not been completed. It was then argued that the charge-sheet (Annexure A-3 to the affidavit of the applicant) filed under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is also incomplete and no trial can proceed on basis of this charge-sheet. 4. I will first deal with the latter points raised in the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant. The contention of the learned Counsel that the first information report of the case was filed by Janki Singh has no substance. Annexure A-1 to the affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is the first information report filed by the Inspector, U. P. Satarkata Adhisthan, Varanasi. No doubt, on the complaint of Janki Singh the matter was initiat ed but that does not render the report illegal. Thus, there is no force in this submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant. 5. As regards the incomplete charge-sheet also, there is no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant. The charge-sheet has been filed under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act after com pleting the investigation and collecting the evidence in that regard. As regards Section 409, I. P. C. the investigation was incomplete and, therefore, the charge-sheet was not filed in respect of the offence under Section 409, I P C However, it is only on the basis of the investigation and collection of evidence that the charge-sheet is filed by the police/c. I D. Even supple mentary charge- sheet can be filed in respect of the offence under Section 409 I. P. C. There is thus no force in this submission of the learned Counsel for the 'applicant that the Sessions Judge cannot take cognizance in respect of the offence under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and cannot proceed with the trial partially in respect of the offence only under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 6. Now I come to the main argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant regarding sanction. The power possessed by the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. are very wide and the very plenitude of the power re-quires great caution in its exercise. The inherent power under this section can be exercised by the High Court- (1) to give effect to any order passed under the Code or (2) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or (3) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. can be exercised for quashing the proceedings- (1) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar e. g. want of sanction, (?) |where the allegations in the F. I R. or complaint admitting its face value do not constitute any offence and (3) where the allegations constitute an offence but there is no legal evidence and the evidence adduced clearly fails to prove the charge It must be borne in mind that there is distinction in the cases where there it no sanction or there is no valid sanction, or where there is no legal evidence and where is evidence which there is inconsistent with the accusation made and the case where there is legal evidence which on appreciation may or may not support the accusation. 7. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry, whether the evi dence in question is reliable or not. It is the function of a trial court. No doubt if the learned Counsel for the applicant succeeds to show that there is no sanction in the case as required under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 has been repealed by the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This new Act contains new Section 19, which is analogous to the provisions of Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947 except clause (3) of Sec tion 19 which provides that on the ground of irregularity, error or omission, no finding of the court can be reversed and no court can stay the proceedings in these cases on such grounds unles in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has, in fact, been occasioned thereby. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant cited two rulings, Ram Chandra Misra v. State of U. P. , 1991 (28) ACC 147 and Ramanand v. State of U. P. % 1991 (Supplementary) ACC 238, In the case of Ram Chandra Misra (supra) the sanction was held to be invalid as it was accorded by the sanctioning authority without application of its mind and also without looking into relevant mate rial pertaining to the case. In the said case there was no mention in the sanction order (Annexure-4) that relevant material of the case was placed before the sanctioning authority at the time of the passing of the order. In the case of Ramanand (supra), the sanction was accorded by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax and not by the Deputy Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner and thus it was held that no valid sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been obtained as the authority granting such sanction was not the competent authority to grant it. Both the aforesaid rulings do not apply to the facts of the present case and are of no help to the applicant. In the present case in para 6 of the affidavit of the applicant it is mentioned that neither the Government of U. P. , nor the Director of Agriculture had granted sanction to prosecute the applicant. This has been controverted by Sri Sarvajeet Mishra in his counter-affidavit and it is stated that the sanction was accorded by then Director of Agriculture Sri Subodh Nath Jha on 24-7- 1984 (vide Annexure 'ca-1' to the counter affidavit ). In para 8 of the rejoinder-affidavit filed by the applicant it is again asserted that the sanction has not been accorded by the Director of Agriculture and that Sri Subodh Nath Jha was the Agriculture Secretary and was not empowered to grant sanction. It is further stated that Annexure CA-1 is signed by Sri Subodh Nath Jha in a mechancal way. This averment of the applicant is belied by the sanction order (Annexure 1 to the affidavit of the applicant) itself in which Sri Subodh Nath Jha declares himself to be the Director of Agriculture, U. P. and the competent authority regarding the applicant. He had perused the case diary and relevant, docu ments before according the sanction, There is nothing on record to show that Sri Subodh Nath Jha was not the Director of Agriculture, U. P. and was not competent authority to grant sanction. The sanction order speaks for itself and prima facie it is the sanction which was accorded by the competent autho rity after perusing the case diary and other relevant material in the case, hence at this stage it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the said sanction if invalid on the ground that it was not accorded by the compe tent authority and was granted in a mechanical way. Prima facie the sanction has been accorded by the competent authority. It cannot be said that there is no sanction. 9. As already stated above, there is distinction in saying that there is no sanction and that the sanction is not valid one. It is the domain of the trial court to go into the question of the validity of the sanction or otherwise of the sanction. Prima facie the sanction has been accorded by the competent authority. However, it will be open to the applicant to challenge the validity or otherwise of the sanction in the court below. 10. Regarding the next point that the sanction was accorded mechani cally without application of mind and without considering the material on record in the case has also no force. It is specifically mentioned in the sanction order itself that the sanctioning authority perused the case diary and other documents pertaining to the present case and that it was clear from the said case diary and documents that prima facie a case under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the applicant Sabhajeet Singh on the basis of the available evidence. Thus, it cannot be said that the sanction was accorded in a mechanical way, without application 01 mind and without considering the available evidence on record by the sanctioning authority. The endorsement made in the sanction order also makes it clear that the case diary and other documentary evidence which were available were perused by the sanctioning authority and thereafter they were sent back to the Superin tendent of Police U. P. , Satarkata Adhishthan, Varanasi. 11. The Supreme Court has in the case of Khacheru Singh v. State of U, P. , AIR 1982 SC 784, has held that if eventually Magistrate comes to con clusion that no offence was made out against the accused, he himself can dis charge or acquit the accused, as the case may be. Thus, it is still open to the applicant to advance arguments regarding his discharge as was advanced before me, 12. The submission made by the learned Counsel of the applicant that in submitting the charge-sheet against him other sources of income of the appli cant were not taken into account. The applicant can still raise this point before the lower court concerned. 13. In the present case none of the grounds under Section 482, Cr. P. C. exists and, therefore, the inherent powers under the said section cannot be exercised in the absence of any manifest error or miscarriage of justice or abuse of any process of the court. In the proceeding, this Court cannot go into the question as to what is the evidence in the case because it is the domain of the trial Court. As to what would be the evidence against the applicant is not a matter to be considered at this stage and would have to be proved at the trial (See AIR 198? SC LSI-Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Purshottam Dass Jhunjkunwala and others and AIR 1971 SC 1 S9-Balraj v. Mohi Ram. 14. In view of my afaresaid discussion, I do not find it a fit case for invoking powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. The present appli cation under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. 15. The interim order passed in this case is hereby vacated. Application dismissed. .