SUDHA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein is facing trial under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act') in case FIR No.2 of 2012 dated 16.02.2012, registered under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of P.C. Act in Police Station, State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as 'SV and ACB Shimla') in Sessions Case No.6.R/7 of 2013, titled as State vs. Sudha Gupta, wherein charge has been framed against her.

(2.) By means of present petition, quashing of FIR, sanction granted by the competent authority to prosecute petitioner, charges framed against her and consequential proceedings of criminal trial, has been sought on the ground: (i) that State Police was not having jurisdiction to investigate the matter and presenting challan in the Court against petitioner for the reason that (i) she is a Central Government employee, serving as a Principal in Kendriya Vidyalaya (KV), ITBP, Sarahan Bushahr, an Organization and instrumentality of the Government of India under r the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development; (ii) challan presented against petitioner is a case of no evidence on record and no prima facie case exists against her; and (iii) sanction granted to prosecute the petitioner is a result of non-application of mind having been granted in stereotype manner.

(3.) Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Senior Counsel, has contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has been framed for demanding bribe from the complainant, who was serving as a contractual teacher of spoken English language in KV, for renewal of her contract in the next academic session, whereas, as notified vide Office Memorandum dated 18.10.2011 (Annexure P-5), in Clause-6, contractual teacher, once engaged in a school, was not entitled for renewal further in the next academic session and, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to raise any demand for an act, which was not permissible at all and, therefore, story of the prosecution case is not sustainable. Further that it is the claim of prosecution that on the basis of information disclosed by complainant on 16.09.2012, it was found that it was a case of urgent nature and for paucity of time, State Police had to act without informing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) despite the fact that CBI only was having jurisdiction to investigate the matter, from letter dated 15.02.2012 sent from the Office of Superintendent of Police, SV and ACB (SIU) Shimla to Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Rampur for deputing Executive Magistrate and one official to report Deputy Superintendent of Police, SV and ACB at Sarahan and office order dated 15.02.2012 issued by the SDM, Rampur deputing Mukesh Sharma, Tehsildar (Executive Magistrate), Rampur and Vishnu Lal, Field Kanungo, to report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SV and ACB, Shimla, at Sarahan on 16.02.2012 at 9.30 a.m. sharp, filed with challan, it is evident that the information was available with the police on 15.02.2012 itself and there was sufficient time to contact the CBI before proceeding further, as it was mandatory to inform and consult the CBI as provided in Central Bureau of Investigation (Crime) Manual 2005 (in short 'CBI Manual'), however no information was given to CBI not only at initial stage, but till completion of investigation and presentation of challan in the Court, which has vitiated the entire inquiry and resultantly vitiating trial.