Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1270 (ALL)

MOHO SABIR KHAN v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-04-20

ASHOK KUMAR ROOPANWAL

body2010
JUDGMENT ASHOK KUMAR ROOPANWAL, J. – This application has been moved under section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge-sheet dated 24.8.2007 and its consequential cognizance order dated 27.8.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (P.c. Act), Lucknow in State v. Mohd. Sabir Khan, in criminal case No. 63/07 arising out of crime No. 450/07, under sections 7/13(1) (d) and 13 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, P .S. Hazratganj, District Lucknow. 2. It appears from the record that the prosecution came with the case that on 28.6.2007 when the applicant was working in the Office of State Information Commissioner, V.P. Lucknow, the first informant Anil Kumar of village Tankey Gaon, police station Kadipur, District Sultanpur approached him for obtaining the copy of an order. The applicant demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 500. The aggrieved Anil Kumar, thereafter, moved the concerned authorities for apprehending the applicant for his demand of illegal gratification. On his complaint, a trap was laid and the applicant was arrested on 28.6.2007 at 4.45 p.m. while accepting Rs. 500 as illegal gratification and a case at crime No. 450/07, under sections 7/13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Hazratganj, Lucknow was registered. The investigation was done by the police officer and the charge-sheet was submitted on which the cognizance was taken by the Court dealing with anti corruption case. 3. Heard Mr. Mukul Rakesh, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record. 4. It has been argued by Mr. Rakesh that prior to the alleged arrest of the applicant on 28.6.2007 his services had already been terminated by the Chief Information Commissioner, V.P. This fact is evident from the order of the concerned authority as well as by the fact that the applicant was not paid salary of 28.6.2007. He further argued that at the time of alleged arrest the applicant was not in the public service and so, he could not be termed as “Public Servant” and therefore, the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act could not be made applicable upon him. It was also argued by Mr. Rakesh that the State had applied for the grant of sanction for prosecution which was refused on the ground that there was no necessity of sanction as on the date of alleged arrest the applicant was not a public servant. To the above, learned AGA contended that as all the above contentions of Mr. It was also argued by Mr. Rakesh that the State had applied for the grant of sanction for prosecution which was refused on the ground that there was no necessity of sanction as on the date of alleged arrest the applicant was not a public servant. To the above, learned AGA contended that as all the above contentions of Mr. Rakesh can well be taken care of by the Special Judge (P.C. Act), Lucknow, hence, there can be no propriety at all for this Court to allow the petition. 5. It appears from the record that a trap was laid by the police on the complaint of one Anil Kumar and the accused was arrested on 28.6.2007 while accepting Rs. 500. It is also appearing from the record that on the very day of his arrest i.e. 28.6.2007 his services were terminated by his appointing authority i.e. the Chief Information Commissioner, V.P. The questions as to whether the services were terminated prior to the arrest of the applicant and as to whether he was a public servant or not at the time of his arrest are the questions which can only be decided on the basts of the evidence led by the parties and thus, these questions cannot be allowed to be agitated in the proceedings under section 482, Cr.P.C. 6. Here, I would like to mention that though the State has filed an order showing that the request for according sanction for prosecution was refused by the competent authority on the ground that the applicant was not the public servant at the time of his alleged arrest, but at this time this point cannot be accepted as a gospel truth- nor by this refusal it can be proved conclusively that the applicant was not a public servant at the time of his arrest. Thus, the order refusing to grant sanction cannot help the applicant. 7. So far as the question as to whether the sanction is required or not for prosecuting the applicant, in that regard law has already been settled by the Apex Court where it has been said that the question of necessity of sanction for prosecution in the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act should be decided by the trial Court as this question is in its exclusive domain. Thus, on the point of want of sanction no interference is warranted in exercise of the jurisdiction under section 482, Cr.P.C. by this Court. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in this petition. Petition is finally disposed of with this direction that the applicant may move before the trial Court for discharge at the appropriate stage of the trial. Petition Disposed Of.