PRAMOD CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 160 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 421 of 2018 against the application under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13 It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by his successor. The amount, which has been paid for the purchase of land, has been paid in accordance with the new Act by the name "Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013" for land acquisition which came into force with effect from 1.1.2014, whereby the rate of compensation was enhanced by at least 100%, therefore, allegation that the said land was sold at double the price is baseless. Further it is argued that the accused-applicant has been charged under Section 120-B IPC for which there should be more than one accused but in the present case, accused is the only accused, hence charge under the said offence could not have been framed against him. It was also argued that charge sheet has been submitted against accused-applicant on 20.9.2018 which was the last day for submission of the same i.e. 90th day since his arrest, whereafter he would be entitled for default bail. It is further argued that the decision of land acquisition in the village in question was made in the Board meeting of YEIDA and the same was collecteive decision, hence applicant cannot be solely held responsible for taking the said decision. The report dated 8.12.2017 was of One Meena Bhargava, the then General Manager, Planning YEIDA was neither a competent authority nor part of any Investigating Agency to inquire/investigate in the land acquisition made during the tenure of the applicant with the approval of Board of YEIDA, as per the Board meeting of the YEIDA. The report dated 8.12.2017, which is basis of the F.I.R. dated 3.6.2018, does not mention any specific role of the applicant. Under verbal direction of the CEO finally culminating in a report dated 8.12.2017, which is authored by an incompetent person, in the said report, no role has been assigned to the applicant nor any ascertainment has been made of any loss but only suspicion has been raised. It is shocking that immediate superior of the then CEO, YEIDA further prepared report dated 31.5.2018 and issued directions to register an F.I.R. The said report is factually incorrect. No show cause notice was ever issued to the applicant nor any explanation was sought nor any approval from Board of YEIDA was taken for conducting such an inquiry. The applicant has superannuated on 31.10.2017 after having completed 34 years of long service. The applicant has been arrested on 22.6.2018 in a clandestine manner though prior to that he had moved Crl. Misc. Writ Petition Bearing No. CRLP/16169/2018, which was adjourned for hearing and the same has been rendered infructuous. The applicant's second bail application no. 29215 of 2019 has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.9.2019. The sanction for prosecution should have been obtained against the applicant, which was not obtained on the ground that applicant had superannuated on 31.10.2017 and, therefore, he has prayed that entire proceedings need to be quashed.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing and has drawn attention of the court to the fact that charge sheet has been submitted against accused-applicant after having recorded as many as 21 witnesses but statements of not even one out of 22 witnesses have been annexed by the applicant and prayer has been made for quashing charge sheet on the ground that there is no evidence on record against him, which is not maintainable in view of non filing of the said statements. In order to respond to the allegation that charge under Section 120-B IPC is not made out, it is argued by him that though charge sheet in question itself discloses that against other accused persons, the investigation is going on, hence, at this stage, it cannot be said that other accused were not involved in conspiracy to give effect to the present occurrence with the present accused-applicant. It is further argued that as regards not obtaining sanction for prosecution, the same was not not required because accused had already retired, thereafter only cognizance has been taken and the new amended Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would not be applicable. It is further argued that since charge has already been framed, at this stage, trial is in progress, therefore, case for quashing of the proceedings against the accused-applicant is not made out.