RISHI KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. K. Roopanwal, J. Both these criminal revisions have been filed against the order dated 1 -12-2003 passed by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Meerut, in Criminal Case No. 26 of 1997, State v. Rishi Kumar Agarwal and an other, whereby the application moved by the revisionists Rishi Kumar Agarwal and Mahendra Singh Yadav, for their discharge from the case was rejected and charges were framed against them.

(2.) IT appears from the facts of the case that one Sheodan Singh, son of Shyam Lal Yadav, resident of Nagla Santa, Hamlet of Bedhai, Tehsil Sadabad, District Mathura, gave an application to the Superintendent U. P. Vigilance De partment at Agra on 26-2-1992 alleging therein that the revisionist Rishi Kumar Agarwal, S. D. O. (Electricity), Sadabad, District Mathura, was demanding a sum of Rs. 1, 000 as illegal gratification from him in order to show some favour. The S. P. Vigilance, Agra, directed the Deputy S. P. Vigilance, Agra, Sri Dharmpal Singh to arrange a trap against the revisionist Rishi Kumar Agarwal. The trap was laid on 28-3-1992 and when he was accepting the gratification of Rs. 1, 000/- from the applicant Sheodan Singh he was apprehended by the vigilance department and a case at Crime No. 77 of 1992 under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was registered against him. During investigation of the case it came to light that the revisionist Mahendra Singh Yadav, who was working as Sub Station Operator at Electricity Sub Sta tion, Sadabad, District Mathura, had prepared the forged departmental documents in order to save Sri Rishi Kumar Agarwal. After investigation sanction for prosecu tion was taken form the Competent Authority and then charge-sheet was submit ted against the revisionists. When the case came at the stage of framing of the charge a request was made by the revisionists Rishi Kumar Agarwal and Mahendra Singh Yadav to discharge them from the changes on two grounds, firstly, that the investigation was conducted by a person not authorised under the Act to conduct investigation and secondly, the sanction for prosecution accorded by the Compe tent Authority was not a valid sanction and thus it was a case in which "no sanc tion" for prosecution as was required under Section 19 of the Act was accorded. The trial Court did not accept the case of the revisionists and their prayer was rejected. Subsequently thereto charges were framed under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B, I. P. C. and Section 218, I. P. C. against the revisionists. The revisionist Rishi Kumaragarwal was also separately charged for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1 ) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) MR. Dilip Kumar assailed the impugned order of the trial Court dated 1-12-2003 and the charges framed against the revisionists on the following two points : Firstly, that the case against the revisionists was investigated by Inspector of Vigilance, who was not authorised to investigate as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Act and that the investigation can also not be said to be a fair investiga tion as it was conducted by an officer below the rank of the officer, who had conducted the raid and secondly, the sanction for prosecution accorded in the present case cannot be said to be a valid sanction in the eye of law and on the basis of such sanction prosecution of the revisionists cannot go on.