Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 1851 (ALL)

ABDUL RAHMAN JAFRI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

1999-11-26

D.R.CHAUDHARY, S.R.SINGH

body1999
D. R. CHAUDHARY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, Abdul Rahman Jafri, a Class III employee in the Family Court, Allahabad has instituted the present writ petition seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the part of the order dated 22. 12. 1999 (Annexure-5) whereby the second respondent has ordered that the petitioner "shall be charged under Sections 161 and 165a of I. P. C. ". ( 2 ) BEFORE proceeding further, it may be mentioned here that the petition was entertained initially by a single Judge Bench but on an application moved by the complainant Dr. Lal Bahadur, the bench consisting of Honble the Chief Justice and Honble M. Katju, J. , by order dated 13. 9. 99 directed that the matter be placed before a Bench presided over by one of us (S. R. Singh. J.) and it was pursuant to the said order that the matter was listed before this Bench. ( 3 ) WE have heard Shri S. S. Tyagt for the petitioner and Government Advocate for State and Dr. Lal Bahadur, the complainant who appeared in person. ( 4 ) IT transpires from the record that a F. I. R. was lodged by Shri Surendra Pratap Mishra. Judge family Court, Allahabad, against the petitioner and four others under Sections 161 and 165a of the indian Penal Code. The F. I. R. was lodged on the basis of a complaint made by Dr. Lal bahadur to the Honble the Chief Justice that Brij Bhushan Pandey, Mohd. Shakil, Manglesh and abdul Rahman Jafri working as class III employees in the Court of Judge; Family Court, allahabad took illegal gratification of Rs. 150 on February 4 and 5. 1997 for issuing copy of an order. The F. I. R. was lodged at Police Station Colonelganj, Allahabad. On the basis of the aforesaid F. I. R. , Case Crime No. 139 of 1997 was registered at Police Station, Colonelganj, allahabad and on completion of the investigation, it appears, the investigating agency found a triable case and accordingly applied for sanction as comprehended by Section 19 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The District and Sessions Judge acting as incharge Judge family Court, Allahabad, by his order dated 27. 7. 1998 accorded permission for prosecution of the petitioner and Mohd. Shakil in Case Crime No. 139 of 1997, Police Station. Colonelganj. The District and Sessions Judge acting as incharge Judge family Court, Allahabad, by his order dated 27. 7. 1998 accorded permission for prosecution of the petitioner and Mohd. Shakil in Case Crime No. 139 of 1997, Police Station. Colonelganj. Allahabad under Sections 161 and 165a. I. P. C. and Sections 7 and 13 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Earlier the Judge Family Court, Allahabad, by his order dated 3. 6. 98 being Annexure-2 to the writ petition, had accorded sanction for prosecution of co-accused Brij bhushan Pandey and Manglesh Singh in the self same case under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (a) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, the cognizance was taken by the competent court and Criminal Case No. 4 of 1998, State v. Brij Bhushan Pandey and others, was registered against the petitioner and four others. ( 5 ) THE petitioner moved an application being Annexure-4 to the writ petition before the trial judge praying for quashing of his prosecution on the ground that the sanction accorded vide order dated 27. 7. 1998 was invalid and without Jurisdiction. The learned trial Judge by the impugned order dated 22. 12. 1998 held that the District and Sessions Judge acting as incharge judge, Family Court was not competent to grant sanction of the petitioners prosecution. Accordingly, the petitioner was held liable to be discharged under Section 13 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988". But at the same time, the learned trial Judge directed that the petitioner be charged under Sections 161 and 165a of the indian Penal Code. Relevant part of the impugned order dated 22. 12. 1998 reads as under : "since the Court has been prohibited to take cognizance for want of valid sanction thus the case cannot proceed against accused Abdul Rahman Jafri and he is liable to be discharged under section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. As for Section 161, I. P. C. and Section 165a, I. P. C. is concerned no previous sanction is required under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. Previously under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. As for Section 161, I. P. C. and Section 165a, I. P. C. is concerned no previous sanction is required under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. Previously under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947, previous sanction was required for prosecution under Sections 161 and 165 of I. P. C. also but the Act has been repealed and replaced by Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in which no previous sanction is required for prosecution under Sections 161 and 165 of I. P. C. and as such accused Abdul Rahman Jafri shall be charged under Sections 161, 165a of I. P. C. it is made clear that if prosecution obtains valid sanction from Competent Authority mentioned under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, accused shall be tried for that offence under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. As discussed above, the accused Abdul Rehman Jafri shall be charged under Sections 161 and 165a of I. P. C. Fix 5. 1. 99 for fixing of charge. All accused should appear on that date for framing of charge. " ( 6 ) IT is not disputed that the Judge, Family Court is the authority competent to remove the petitioner. Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988, provides that no Court shall take cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction of authorities referred to in clauses (a ). (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which are quoted below : " (a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his offence save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that government, (b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his offence save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that government, (c) in the case of any other person of the authority competent to remove him from his office. " ( 7 ) THE petitioners case is covered by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. " ( 7 ) THE petitioners case is covered by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. The District and Sessions Judge being not the authority competent to remove the petitioner was held to have no jurisdiction to grant sanction for offence punishable under Section 13 of the said Act. This part of the order has not been challenged. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to express our opinion as to correctness or otherwise of the view so taken by the trial Judge or examine the effect of "any error" in the sanction dated 27. 7. 1998 as stipulated in Section 19 (2) of the Act read with clause (a) of the Explanation appended to Section 19. ( 8 ) IT would be evident from the order afore stated that the sanction accorded by the District and sessions Judge in his capacity as incharge Judge, Family Court, Allahabad, has been set at naught by the order impugned herein but in so far as it relates to prosecution under Sections 161 and 165a of indian Penal Code, it has been maintained. The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that Sections 161 to 165a of the indian Penal Code (both inclusive) have" been omitted vide Section 31 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988 and, therefore, the question of petitioner being prosecuted under the said Sections does not arise in our opinion, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner carries substance. Section 31 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, reads as under : "31. Omission of certain Sections of Act 45 of 1860.--Sections 161 to 165a (both inclusive) of the indian Penal Code shall be omitted and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. 1897 (10 of 1897), shall apply to such omission as if the said sections had been repealed by a Central Act. " ( 9 ) THE alleged incident of taking illegal gratification is of February 4/5. 1997. The F. I. R. was lodged under Sections 161 and 165a of indian Penal Code read with Prevention of Corruption act and the sanction too appears to have been granted the prosecution in Case Crime No. 139 of 1997 Police Station Colonelganj, Allahabad under Sections 161 and 165a. 1997. The F. I. R. was lodged under Sections 161 and 165a of indian Penal Code read with Prevention of Corruption act and the sanction too appears to have been granted the prosecution in Case Crime No. 139 of 1997 Police Station Colonelganj, Allahabad under Sections 161 and 165a. I. P. C. read with section 7/13 (1) (a) of Prevention of Corruption Act but the fact remains that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted under Sections 161 and 165a of indian Penal Code which have been omitted vide Section 31 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The order dated 27. 7. 1998 of the district and Sessions Judge passed in his capacity as Judge. Family Court, Allahabad, according permission for the prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 161 to 165a. I. P. C. (both inclusive) appears to have been passed in ignorance of the provisions contained in Section 31 of prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which provides that Sections 161 and 165a both inclusive have been omitted. There cannot be any prosecution of any person under the aforesaid sections and the learned trial Judge has erred in law in directing that the "accused Abdul Rahman Jafri shall be charged under Sections 161 and 165a, I. P. C. ". The "sanction" implies application of mind. Exercise of power to sanction prosecution sans application of mind is bad in taw and invalid. In the circumstances, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 22. 12. 1998 in so far as it directs that the "accused Abdul Rahman Jafri shall be charged under Sections 161 and 165a. I. P. C. " is quashed. .