GOPA CHAKRAVARTHY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these bail applications, the allegations are of criminal breach of trust and cheating, wherein the complainants allege to have extended payments to the accused in the hope of getting public employment. It may be pointed out that the accused are not Government servants so as to examine the case from the point of view of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused are alleged to be posing themselves capable of ensuring employment to the complainants in governmental organisations or public posts. The leading bail application No. 1865 of 2007 was taken up on 11th September, 2007 whereupon an order was passed to the following effect:-

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY, the other four applications were also taken up and in bail application Nos. 5072 and 5074, a similar nature of complaint was made that a monetary transaction had taken place for extending benefits of public employment in the Railways. On the same footing are the allegations contained in bail application Nos. 821 of 2007 and 3742 of 2007 wherein employment is sought in the Secretariat of the Government of Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow. The essence of all the complaints is, therefore, failure to get gainful employment sought to be acquired on payment of money in public offices. During the course of arguments the said issue, as to whether the complainants themselves had abetted the offence by making the disclosure as contained in the F.I. Rs or not, that this Court had called upon the State to answer the querries raised vide the aforesaid order dated 11th September, 2007. The matter was listed on 17th September, 2007 when time was sought by the State to file a response. The time sought for by the State was again extended and the matter was directed to come up on 28.9.2007. On the said date, the learned Government Advocate Sri Mahendra Pratap Yadav made a request for a further adjournment and the following order was passed on 28.9.2007:

(3.) AN abettor under section 108 of the Indian Penal Code is defined as such: