ATAM PRAKASH AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned, Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

(2.) Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Present application under Section 482 Cr P.C. has been filed to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2863 of 1991 State of U.P. v. Atam Prakash Agrawal and Ors. pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Bijnor under Sections 467, 468, 409, 420, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) Present applicant was posted as Assistant Engineer in P.W D at Bijnor certain grudge was nurtured by the then Superintendent Engineer one H.N. Sharam, who alone tried to cause harassment to the applicant and initiated certain departmental inquiry against the applicant, despite he had an excellent service record and was appreciated by me other senior authorities of the department However, after the retirement of the applicant, he came to know in the month of August, 1993 that FIR was registered against him and the police had submitted charge sheet, which is annexure No. 4 to the affidavit. Charge sheet related to an offence alleged to have been committed sometimes in the year 1980 and daily wager Jai Pal had given an application to District Magistrate in the end of November 1982 that his wage is at the Rs. 6/- per day along with several other daily wagers, was misappropriated by the present applicant in collusion with some other junior employees and the total amount embezzled is Rs. 1638-. winch was to be paid in respect of construction of Deckboard at the Rauhghat. The record shows that sanction by the Government, was granted only on 16.4.1988 which is a prerequisite for initiating prosecution against the government Servant, if an act is done in discharge of his official duty and also for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sanction granted after a lapse of eight years of the alleged date of occurrence, is annexure No. 5 to the affidavit. The statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C of the other daily wagers has been annexed with the affidavit as annexure No. 6, 7 and 8. Perusal of the said statement shows that the complaint has been filed on behalf of 20 daily wagers. whose names were typed on the complaint but it bears thumb impression of only Jai Pal S/o Ghisu, the Signature on the master roll was also shown to the daily wagers and they had expressed uncertainty and that they were not satisfied as to whether thumb impressions has been affixed by some other persons or the witnesses themselves. Besides, extract of the report of Government Thumb Impression Expert has also been annexed as annexure No. 9 to the affidavit in support of the contention on behalf of applicant that he was not able to ascertain regarding the signature as it was not decipherable, the thumb impression was blurred and the expert could not give a definite opinion on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the police submitted charge sheet, which has been challenged on a number of grounds by the applicant