BISHAMBHAR NATH KANAUJIA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bishambhar Nath Kanaujia, the present applicant, was working as Chief Registration Clerk in the office of the District Registrar, Shahjahanpur, on 10-6-1976. He accepted a sum of Rs.20/- as illegal gratification on that date. A case was registered against him under S.161 of the Penal Code and under S.5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act. The case was investigated and a charge-sheet was submitted and the sanction was obtained for his prosecution. He was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Shahjahanpur, and was convicted and sentenced to one year's R.I. under S.161 of the Penal Code and one year's R.I. under S.5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order of the Special Judge, Shahjahanpur, through Criminal Appeal No.2858 of 1978 in this Court. The appeal was allowed solely on the ground that the prosecution of the applicant was without proper sanction and the defect vitiated the trial. The conviction and sentences were, therefore, set aside on 25-2-1981. Thereafter, the prosecution obtained fresh sanction and filed charge-sheet before the Special Judge (District Judge), Shahjahanpur, who took the cognizance and transferred the case to the Third Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Shahjahanpur. The applicant moved an application before the trial Judge praying that he should not be tried for the second time. The prayer of the applicant was rejected by the trial Judge on 13-5-1982. The applicant has moved Criminal Misc. Application No.6093 of 1982 under S.482 of the Cr.P.C. and has also preferred this Criminal Revision No.1218 of 1982 against the same order. Both the Criminal Revision and the application under S.482 of the Cr.P.C. have been connected together. I, therefore, propose to decide both of them by this judgment alone.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the A.G.A. and have perused the record.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the appellate Court has given no specific direction for the re-trial under S.386(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the applicant cannot be retried. The High Court, while deciding the appeal, has observed: "The learned counsel for the State contended that since the trial as well as conviction of the appellant was vitiated the appellant can be prosecuted again after obtaining valid sanction. This is a matter on which it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion at this stage."