SHANTI BAI Vs. SPECIAL ESTABLISHMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings of Special Case No. 1/2018, pending before the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Indore for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) of the IPC alongwith Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the applicants.

(2.) Relevant facts of the case are that on 29/12/2014, complainant Laxmi Chourasia W/o Antar Singh Chourasiya, resident of Village Kumhedi, Teh. Sanwer, District-Indore made a written complaint to SPE, Indore alleging that her house was demolished by Indore Development Authority, as the same was creating obstruction in development of Scheme Nos. 139 and 169(A) and therefore, she was entitled for an alternate site. For the said purpose, she submitted an application to Collector, Indore with a copy to Sarpanch, who later on allotted pieces of land bearing Survey No. 88/2 to the villagers for the purpose of constructing their houses. When she approached to Sarpanch-Smt. Shantibai and her son Rajesh, they demanded Rs.10,000/- as gratification from her and thereafter, the amount of Rs.8,000/- was settled. It is also alleged that on 29/12/2014, applicant No.2 came to her hut and demanded the amount and threatened the complainant that if she will not pay the amount, she will not get any piece of land. On the basis of the complaint, an FIR bearing Crime No. 0/130/2014 under Section 120(B) of the IPC alongwith Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the applicants. After completion of the necessary formalities a trap was arranged and applicant No.2-Rajesh Solanki was trapped by Special Police Establishment, Indore accepting of Rs.4,000/- as gratification from the complainant. Thereafter, original Crime No. 562/2014 was registered at Police-StationSPE, Bhopal on 31/12/2004. During the investigation, Investigating Officer made a request for according prosecution sanction to Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Indore, who informed vide leter dated 24/11/2017 that Village Kumhedi was included in Municipal Corporation, Indore in 2014-2015, therefore, the Gram Panchayat, Kumhedi is not in existence and applicant No.1-Shanti Bai is not holding any post, therefore, no prosecution sanction may be granted . After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Indore.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants submits that on 04/03/2014, as per the provisions of Section 405(3) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, had issued a notification published in gazzete (extraordinary), whereby it was notified that 23 villages were included in the territorial limits of Municipal corporation, Indore including the village Kumhedi. Thus, from 04/03/2014, the Gram Panchayat of village Kumhedi was not in existence and on the date of commission of alleged offence, the applicant No.1-Smt. Shantibai was not having the post of Sarpanch of Village-Kumhedi, therefore, she was not a public servant as per Section 2(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; whereas the applicant No.2 is the son of applicant No.1 and he was not having any public post, therefore, no prosecution sanction could be granted by the CEO, Jila Panchayat, Indore, hence, the continuation of criminal proceeding against the applicants without getting any prosecution sanctioned is sheer abuse of process of law. The provisions of the Act of 1988 have already been amended vide Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, which came into force from the date of publication in the gazzete of India (Extra ordinary) on 26/07/2018, by which the provision of Section 19 of the Act of 1988 have been amended and explanation for the purposes of sub-section (1) has been inserted, which provides that the expression Public Servant includes such person (a) who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed or (b) who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed and is holding an office other than the office during which the offence alleged to have been committed, therefore, the prosecution sanction for the public servant, who has been ceased to hold the office is also essential for prosecuting him under the Provisions of the Act of 1988, therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicants without getting any prosecution sanction will be a futile exercise, which will serve no purpose. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicants prayed for quashment of the proceedings pending against the applicants before the Court of the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Indore.