RAM DASS PANWAR SON OF SH. GHUNU RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUNI, TEHSIL SUNI, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P. Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against order dated 16.11.2010 passed by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in Corruption Case No. 3 of 2009 State of H.P. vs. Meena Kumari and others.

(2.) It has been stated in the petition that one Meena Kumari forged/fabricated certificate from the Board of School Education for obtaining the job on compassionate ground after the demise of her husband Trilok Chand. An FIR No. 3 of 2002 was registered on 24.9.2002 at State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Bilaspur under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B IPC read with Section 13 (1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'Act'). The petitioner in the year 2008 has been implicated as an accused. The petitioner at the relevant time was serving as Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur. The allegation against the petitioner is that he attested the affidavit as Additional District Magistrate. The affidavit was entered in the register on an ante date and Meena kumari was mentioned as Meena Soni. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case.

(3.) HEARD . The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Special Judge has framed charge against petitioner under Section 465 IPC read with Section 120 -B IPC, Section 468 IPC read with Section 120 -B IPC, Section 13 (1) (b) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120 -B IPC. It has been submitted that petitioner allegedly attested the affidavit in question as government servant and, therefore, he cannot be prosecuted for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. He has relied judgment dated 27.6.2011 in Criminal Revisions No. 98, 99 of 2011 decided on 27.6.2011. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that no sanction is required for prosecuting the petitioner either under Section 197 Cr.P.C. in view of nature of offence committed by him or under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner has already retired and no sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act is required for prosecuting a retired public servant.