JAI RAM DUBEY Vs. SHRI PRAKASH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of Sri S.D.N. Singh, Special Judge, Mirzapur, dated 6 -1 -1977, holding that the prosecution of the opposite party No. 1 was not maintainable in respect of charge No. 3.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts which led to the filing of this revision are that Jai Ram Dubey, the applicant, filed complaints before the Superintendent of police, Mirzapur, against the opposite party No. 1 to the effect that he had abused his official position in order to procure money illegally and with that end in view he exhorted a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - from one Gayadin and Rs. 18,000/ - from other villagers, under the pretext that he required the aforesaid sum of Rs. 18,000/ - for construction of an institution. After investigation, a charge -sheet was submitted against the opposite party No. 1. The Special Judge, Mirzapur, framed charges against the said opposite party on 27 -8 -1976. Charge No. 3, which is material for our purposes, is being quoted below :

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant contended that the learned special Judge had no jurisdiction to review the earlier order dated 27 -8 -1976. by which after examining the record he had already framed charges against the opposite party No. 1, including the charge in respect of the acceptance of Rs. 18,000/ -as illegal gratification. He contended that the learned Special Judge committed an error in holding that the sanction, as required by Section 6 of the Act, had not been accorded by the Prescribed Authority with regard to charge No. 3. The argument raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant necessitates the looking into the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) dated 8 -4 -1976, by which the necessary sanction was granted to prosecute the opposite party No. 1 under Section 6(1)(c) of the Act. It would be found that by this order, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) had granted sanction for prosecution of the opposite party No. 1 with respect to the obtaining of Rs. 10,000/ - from Gayadin, and for the connected offence under Sections 342/220 I.P.C. The sanction does not speak anything about the acceptance of Rs. 18,000/ - alleged to have been obtained by the opposite party No. 1 from the villagers of Dudhi and Wyndhomganj by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant. It is necessary that the sanction should relate the facts constituting the offence for which a public servant is to be prosecuted. As stated above, the sanction does not talk about the illegal gratification of Rs. 18,000/ - regarding which the third charge was earlier framed by the Special Judge. The allegations made with regard to the acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/ - for which the sanction was granted, by no stretch of reasoning could be extended to the facts constituting another distinct offence but in relation to another case. Counsel, however, led emphasis on the words "for the offences or any other offence which may be made from the evidence on the record" and contended that the scope of these words used in the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police was so wide that the same included within it the necessary sanction for the prosecution of the third charge as well. I am unable to uphold this contention. These words contained in paragraph 3 cannot be read in isolation. The sanction order has to be read as a whole. Reading it as such, there is no doubt in my mind that it related to charges Nos. 1 and 2 framed by the Special Judge, and not to charge No. 3.