PANCHAM LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition, the sole petitioner has come up for quashing of the order dated 18-4-1998 granting sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) It appears that Shri A. K. Sinha, the then District Magistrate, Mau lodged an F.I.R. on 19-11-1992 alleging that Shri Mishri Lal, Additional Collector, Mau came to his residence and handed over a brief case containing Rs. 1,00,000.00 (Rs. One lac) as commission against the bill paid to the contractor, M/s. Arunji and Sons, Varanasi for erecting Pandals, pavilion etc. in the General Election of 1991. The matter was investigated by the Vigilance Department of the State Government which detected various lapses and irregularities committed while inviting tenders for the pandals, tent etc. for the purposes of polling and counting of the votes during the General Election held on 20th and 26th of May, 1991. It was also found that the tender of M/s. Arunji and Sons, Varanasi was accepted in spite of the fact that he was the second lowest tenderer. It has also been found that the bill of Rs. 36,07,494. 30 Paise submitted by the Firm and verified by the petitioner, was incorrect and the amount shown was inflated as it included charges of such work which was not actually done. Even on the basis of the tender the actual amount payable would be Rs. 17,45,559.85 Paisa whereas the firm submitted bill of Rs. 36,07,494.30 Paise which was verified by the petitioner. After completion of the investigation, the State Government was moved to grant sanction for prosecuting the petitioner u/Ss. 420, 406, 477-A, 120-B, I.P.C. and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Sanctioning Authority having perused the case diary and the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency and having satisfied that prima facie evidence has come disclosing the commission of the offence, by the impugned order granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner, validity of which has been challenged in this petition.

(3.) Shri Vineet Saran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made two submissions. Firstly, the Sanctioning authority without applying his mind granted sanction in a mechanical manner and thus it cannot sustain. Secondly, petitioner invited the tenders on the instruction of the District Magistrate, in pursuant to which eight firms filed tenders. Though the tender of M/s. Arunji and Sons, Varanasi was second lowest but looking at his past experience of doing similar work of 1989 General Election, he bona fide, made recommendation in favour of this firm, which was finally accepted by the District Magistrate. In short the submission is that the petitioner had no final say in the matter and he simply acted on the direction given by the District Magistrate who also approved the same. He also argued that the verification of the bill was made by the petitioner in Kanpur in view of the direction of the Chief Election Officer, U.P. for the verification of the pending bills. It is also contended that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner acted with dishonest intention or has committed any criminal misconduct.