RAJENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'Awake, Arise, 'O' Partha', Lord Krishna thus commanded Arjun, his chosen 'Sakha' and dearest disciple, during the war of Mahabharata to carry on the crusade against the 'Adharma'. Many a determined and dedicated crusaders have selflessly fought against evil being inspired by their 'Gums', enthused by their self -protested ideals and sometimes emboldened by the mandate of the majesty of law which has to rule supreme in every circumstance and on each occasion performing its noble duty of a great leveller. With the aforesaid attitude, tenacity, devotion and consecration respondent Nos. 3 and 4, namely, the Director General, Special Police Establishment and the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment have drawn an FIR contained in 'Annexure P -26' to this Writ Petition against the present petitioner, the erstwhile Minister of Housing and Environment, Department of State of Madhya Pradesh for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) read with Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), quashment of which is sought for in this Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) IT has been submitted in course of hearing by Mr. S.C. Datt, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that it is the honour and the honour alone for which the petitioner has visited this Court for lanceting the uncalled for and unjustified initiation of prosecution and investigation against him. In the backdrop of this submission the question that arises for consideration is whether individual honour would have leverage over the acts done by him in the capacity of a Public trustee in a democratic set up and whether his actions are not to be judged as per the criminal law prevalent in the country. Honour may reign from its own pedestal and one may so proclaim from the pulpit but simultaneously, a public trustee is answerable for every act of his. No one is above law, nor can be allowed to be so. He who holds the power, bears the responsibility. There is no escape. That is the command of law which gives accent on justice. In the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Anr., AIR 1988 SC 1531, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as his Lordship then was) registered his views as under:

(3.) THIS being the view of the Apex Court, the petitioner has to justify the quashment on the ground as envisaged in law but not on the ground of individual honour. Honour has to save itself on the foundation established in law.