Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 401 (MP)

Satish Kumar v. A. D. Chaturvedi

2016-05-12

M.K.MUDGAL, U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2016
ORDER 1. On behalf of the applicant, this revision petition is preferred under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC, being aggrieved by the order dated 26.8.2014, passed by Special Judge (Constituted under Prevention of Corruption Act) and First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Private Complaint Case No.0/2013, whereby the private complaint filed by the applicant against the respondents No.1 to 5 has been dismissed after recording the statements under sections 200 and 202 of CrPC on the ground that in the absence of sanction from the competent authority as per requirement of section19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act in the light of decision of the apex Court in the matter of Anil Kumar v. M. K. Aiyappa [2013 AIR SCW 5570], is not maintainable. 2. Applicant's counsel after taking us through the papers placed on record along with the impugned order, argued that subsequent to passing the aforesaid order by the trial Court, he had approached the competent authority of State Government for grant of sanction to prosecute respondents No.1 to 3 the public servants but such authority has refused to grant sanction to the applicant to prosecute those respondents. So, firstly he seeks permission to withdraw this revision petition till the extent of respondents No.1 to 3, with liberty to approach the appropriate forum under appropriate provision with appropriate proceeding against the order of State Government refusing to grant sanction to prosecute such respondents. 3. Till the aforesaid extent, revision petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn as well as not pressed by extending a liberty to the applicant to approach the appropriate forum with appropriate proceeding permissible under the law against the order of the State authority refusing to grant sanction for prosecution of the respondents No.1 to 3. 4. 3. Till the aforesaid extent, revision petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn as well as not pressed by extending a liberty to the applicant to approach the appropriate forum with appropriate proceeding permissible under the law against the order of the State authority refusing to grant sanction for prosecution of the respondents No.1 to 3. 4. Apart from the aforesaid, in continuation of the argument, by referring the copy of private compliant filed by the applicant before the trial Court, the applicant's counsel submits that such complaint was filed only to take cognizance against the public servants for the offences made punishable under sections 13(1)(d), 13(2), 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 161 166, 120B of IPC but the same was also filed against the respondents No.4 and 5 who are not public servants but they are the persons from private sector and to prosecute them for the alleged offences, no sanction was required and in such premises, the trial Court was bound to consider the matter in the light of the evidence adduced by the applicant under sections 200 and 202 of CrPC for taking cognizance against such respondents No.4 and 5 for the offences as stated above. With this background, he said that it is apparent from the impugned order that while dismissing the complaint by the trial Court the same was dismissed only on one ground that in the lack of sanction for prosecution from the competent authority the complaint is not tenable but the aforesaid aspect for taking cognizance against private persons was not considered in any manner and prayed to set aside the impugned order till the extent of respondents No. 4 and 5 and to remit the matter back to the trial Court with a direction to decide afresh in the light of available papers and evidence to take cognizance of the offences against the respondents No.4 and 5. 5. Responding the aforesaid argument, counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5 submits that he did not have any objection in permitting the applicant to withdraw this petition till the extent of respondents No.1 to 3 with liberty as prayed by applicant's counsel. 5. Responding the aforesaid argument, counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5 submits that he did not have any objection in permitting the applicant to withdraw this petition till the extent of respondents No.1 to 3 with liberty as prayed by applicant's counsel. So far as other argument is concerned, he did not have any objection in remitting the matter back to the trial Court after setting aside the impugned order till the extent of respondents No. 4 and 5 with a direction as prayed by the applicant's counsel but he said that the trial Court be specifically directed to decide the matter till the extent of respondents No.4 and 5 without influencing from any observation of the impugned order as well as order of this Court. 6. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, after perusing the record, we have found that in the light of above-mentioned decision of the apex Court in the matter of Anil Kumar (supra), the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the private complaint in the absence of sanction from the competent authority to prosecute the public servantsrespondents No.1 to 3. So, till such extent, by affirming the impugned order and by allowing prayer of the applicant's counsel, this revision petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn as well as not pressed by extending a liberty to the applicant to approach the appropriate forum with appropriate proceeding under appropriate provisions permissible under the law to challenge the order of State authority whereby his prayer for grant of sanction to prosecute the respondents No.1 to 3 has been refused and subject to order in such proceeding, the applicant shall be at liberty to proceed against the respondents No.1 to 3. 7. On going through the impugned order, we have found some substance in the argument of the applicant's counsel in the matter in respect of respondents No.4 and 5. It is apparent that while passing the impugned order the aforesaid aspect that no such sanction is required to prosecute the respondents No.4 and 5 for the alleged offences was not considered by the trial Court with proper approach and in speaking manner. So, in such premises, the trial Court has committed perversity, irregularity and illegality. It is apparent that while passing the impugned order the aforesaid aspect that no such sanction is required to prosecute the respondents No.4 and 5 for the alleged offences was not considered by the trial Court with proper approach and in speaking manner. So, in such premises, the trial Court has committed perversity, irregularity and illegality. Consequently, the impugned order till extent of respondents No. 4 and 5 is hereby set aside and till such extent, the matter is remitted back to the trial Court with a direction that the question to take cognizance in the matter shall be reconsidered and decided afresh in the light of available evidence and papers to take cognizance against the respondents No.4 and 5. Such Court is also directed to decide afresh without influencing from any observation or direction given by such Court in the impugned order or any observation of this Court in the present matter. 8. Office is directed to send a copy of this order along with record to the concerning trial Court within one month and such Court is directed that soon after receiving the same, shall decide the aforesaid question to take cognizance afresh within further thirty days. 9. Before parting with the case, the trial Court is also extended a liberty that while dealing with the question to take cognizance to consider whether the Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act is having its jurisdiction to entertain such complaint and take cognizance or some other Court is having its jurisdiction and subject to such order, the parties shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate relief. 10. Revision petition is dismissed in part while the same is allowed in part, as indicated above.