Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 453 (ALL)

GANGA PRASAD BHASKAR v. STATE OF U P

2008-02-27

AJAI KUMAR SINGH, VINOD PRASAD

body2008
VINOD PRASAD AND AJAI KUMAR SINGH, JJ. Challenge in this writ petition is the Semi Government letter dated 30. 11. 2004 No. Sa. Aa. /anu.-2-Aa-238/98 (Annexure 7) which is a report, which has been submitted by Dr. Ram lal Ram, by which he has recommended the prosecution of the petitioner for the offences under sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B IPC and section 13 (1) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act. The said recommendation is based on the detailed inquiry, which was conducted by the Vigilance Department running into various pages. A perusal of the impugned Annexure indicates that by entering into criminal conspiracy and misusing their official power various accused persons of Schools and Post Offices in conspiracy with District Minority Welfare Officer and other persons committed embezzlement of more than Rs. Two crores and have illegally squindled said amount. Annexure No. 7 is voluminous and is a detailed document running into various paragraphs and therefore we take the case of Ganga Prasad Bhaskar, the petitioner only. 2. In his respect it is alleged that the petitioner along with the other co-accused Narendra Kumar, Ram Das, Pancham Singh, Suresh Babu Rathor, Ramesh Chandra Assistant Post Master, Radhey Shyam Rathor, Assistant Post Master, Head Post Office, Firozabad and M. lal, M. P. Srivastava, both District Minority Welfare Officers, Shishu Pal Singh the then employee of Vetkala Government Training Centre Firozabad, Ram Krishna, the then, Assistant Teacher, Government Juvenile Home Firozabad, Pratap Singh, the then, Education Officer Firozabad and Durbeen Singh Assistant Education Officer Firozabad conspired and by ignoring the rules and regulations, illegally, opened the account in the name of fake Institutions, and misappropriated millions of rupees of scholarship scheme meant for minority students. The complicity of the petitioner is disclosed in the report of the Vigilance Department at page 98 vide para 2310. 3. The petitioner has prayed to quash the aforesaid allegations against him. 4. We have heard Sri J. S. Sengar learned Counsel for the petitioner at great length and learned AGA in opposition. 5. Sri J. S. Sengar learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that so far as the petitioner is concerned the allegations against him are that of opening of the account in the Post Office. 4. We have heard Sri J. S. Sengar learned Counsel for the petitioner at great length and learned AGA in opposition. 5. Sri J. S. Sengar learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that so far as the petitioner is concerned the allegations against him are that of opening of the account in the Post Office. He further submitted that the petitioner was Assistant Post-Master in the Post Office and no criminality can be attached to his act done in an official capacity in discharge of his duties in absence of any mensrea and consequently impugned report be quashed. Sri Sengar further contended that from the report against the petitioner, at the worst, what can be alleged, to indicate that there was dereliction of duty on his part in opening of the account therefore the petition be allowed and the impugned report be quashed. 6. We have pondered over the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have looked carefully into the impugned report. 7. It is the matter of conspiracy by various persons by misusing their powers and posts for embezzling huge amount of scholarships of poor boys. The petitioner is alleged to have committed various offences detailed above by misusing his power. At this stage we are not inclined to go into the various allegations levelled but it cannot be said that the complicity of the petitioner has been disclosed because of any ulterior motives or mala fide reasons. It also cannot be said that the inquiry report submitted by the Vigilance Department is not correct. Investigating agency must get chance to establish the misuse of powers and committing offences of embezzlement of such a huge amount more than two crores. 8. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner can be agitated at the stage of framing of charge before the Trial Court. Since the conspiracy has been reported after investigation by the vigilance department we are not inclined to quash the impugned report (Annexure-7 to this writ petition) mentioned above. 9. In view of the above we do not find any reason to quash the prosecution against the petitioner. This writ petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed. .