STATE Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vivek Rastogi, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order dated 24.12.1992 passed by 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Agra in S.T. No. 2 of 1991, (State Vs. Rajendra Kumar Jain), under Section 162 I.P.C., P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra and it is prayed that the said order of discharge passed by the trial court be set-aside and the accused-respondents be convicted according to law.

(3.) It is mentioned in the grounds of the revision that opposite party no. 2 was Lekhpal, who was trapped by police for accepting Rs. 6,000/- as bribe from Rup Singh, which was organized on an application of Rup Singh. It was stated by Rup Singh that he had moved an application before Tehsildar for demarcation of his land, which was sent to the accused, who demanded and accepted Rs. 6,000/- as bribe. The Sub-divisional Officer Appointing Authority of the accused did not record the sanction to prosecute the accused on the ground that Rup Singh had committed forgery and a case under Section 420, 120B, 463, 466, 468 and 471 IPC was initiated against Rup Singh. The objection which was raised from the side of accused with respect to framing charge was that since the offence took place much before the enforcement of the Act No. 49 of 1988, the old Act of 1947 would be applicable in the present case, according to which, the sanction by the Competent Authority was required to be taken before taking cognizance of offence under Section 161 IPC or 165 IPC or under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution placed reliance upon the amendment of Section 19 of the Act No. 49 of 1988 which had settled the controversies by amending the clause as follows:-