MONIKA MARRY HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revisionist Smt. Monika Marry Hussain is aggrieved by her summoning order dated 27-10-2005/23-12- 2005 passed by Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Varanasi in Special Trial No. 19 of 2005, State v. Monika Marry Hussain, under Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, P. S. Kotwali, District Fatehpur.

(2.) SINCE only the question of law is involved in this revision, which has been canvassed at the bar, therefore, without going into the details of the prosecution version the allegations against the revisionist mentioned in synthesized description are that on 16/17-2-2005 Sanno wife of Mohd. Samim Ahmad was got admitted at 3. 30 a. m. in District Women Hospital, Fatehpur where the revisionist was a Staff Nurse. Sanno was in the advanced stage of pregnancy but her condition was not satisfactory and she was attend by Dr. Rajbala Gupta. At 4. 30 a. m. Sanno was blessed with a child and attained motherhood, but the mother was administered glucose etc. because she was bleeding excessively. By providence she did not survive long. The applicant-revisionist attended her till 8. 00 a. m. and thereafter handed over the charge of duty to Smt. Geeta Singh another Staff Nurse. At about 12. 00 p. m. on 17-2- 2005 it was informed in the hospital that Sanno lost her life at 11. 30 a. m. The relatives of Sanno created scene in the hospital and misbehaved with the staff levelling all allegations of mishandling the patient. Her Husband Shamim Ahmad lodged a F. I. R. at 2. 50 p. m. in respect of death of his wife alleging therein that Rs. 6,000/- (Rs. Six thousand) were demanded as illegal gratification in the hospital and because of non-fulfilment of which his wife was not treated well and she died. The said F. I. R. has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the affidavit filed in support of this revision. It is important to note that in the F. I. R. nobody was named as an accused. The said F. I. R. , which was registered as crime No. 23 of 2005, under Section 304/471 I. P. C. and 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, P. S. Kotwali, District Fatehpur, was investigated and ultimately a charge-sheet was submitted on 10-8-2005 Annexure No. 4. During the investigation, the statement of the informant and the witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. were recorded vide Annexure No. 2,and from the statement of those witnesses Smt. Geeta Singh, Smt. Rabia, Smt. Bhagwania, Smt. Chhiddi, Smt. Rajrani, Smt. Leela Kumari, Dr. Smt. Rajbala Gupta no allegation of any illegal gratification came out. However, from the statements of Noorjaha wife of Peer Baksh the mother-in-law of the deceased, who stated that her son has informed her that Rs. 6,000/- were demanded and that in two lots Rs. 1,200/- were given, which was thrown by the Staff Nurse Monica Marry Hussain, the present revisionist. Shamim Ahmad in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. levelled allegations that Rs. 6,000/- were demanded from him for the delivery and at the time of delivery excessive bleeding had occurred and his wife lost her life at 11. 00 a. m. From such allegations the charge of illegal gratification came. Husband alleged that the lady doctor and the Staff Nurse, the present revisionist has murdered his wife because of non-fulfilment of the money. The statement of the informant was supported by Shamim son of Banno, Salim son of Allah Rakhu, Peer Baksh son of Chhotu Miya, Farida Bano @ Nakridan wife of Peer Baksh.

(3.) THE only arguments canvassed by learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist under Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the basis of which Special Trial No. 19 of 2005, State v. Monica Marry Hussain, was registered but no sanction was obtained prior to submission of the charge-sheet and the trial Court took the cognizance of the offence without sanction as is required under Section 19 of the P. C. Act and summoned the revisionist which cognizance and summoning order is bad in law and is illegal and therefore, both of it deserves to be quashed. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act clearly provides that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove the Government servant from his office and in the present case since no sanction was obtained for the prosecution of the revisionist from the competent authority, therefore, the summoning order is bad in law and should be quashed. In support of his said contention learned Counsel for the revisionist invited the attention of the Court on ground No. 3 taken in the revision and paragraph No. 9 of the affidavit filed in support of this revision. He contended that the said averments in paragraph 9 of the affidavit has not at all been denied in the counter-affidavit filed by Arvind Kumar Maurya, C. O. City, Fatehpur in paragraph 7 of his counter- affidavit.