Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 197 (MP)

Kailash Babu Soni v. State of M. P.

2018-02-15

ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA, S.K.SETH

body2018
ORDER Seth, J.--1. This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the order dated 23.9.2010 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Bhopal in Special Case No. 01/2010 whereby the application filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been rejected. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that the applicant was appointed as Junior Engineer on 6.2.1975 in the Water Resources Department and was promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer on 12.3.1979. On 27.3.2001, applicant was promoted on the post of Executive Engineer and was posted at Water Resources Division, Sehore. On 15.7.2004, applicant was transferred to the Office of Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resource Department, Bhopal. On 5.8.2005, applicant was posted at Office of Chief Engineer, Bodhi, Bhopal and on 25.3.2010, applicant was placed under suspension and was attached in the Office of Chief Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Water Resources Department, Bhopal. 3. At the relevant point of time, when inventory of disproportionate assets of the applicant was prepared, applicant was posted as Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, Sehore and as such he is a public servant. 4. On 1.7.2004, a raid was conducted by the Lokayukt Police, Bhopal and offences under section 13 (1)(e) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the applicant. Thereafter, challan has been filed before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bhopal. It was challenged by the applicant before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Bhopal and by the order impugned, the said application under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was rejected by the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition. 5. We have heard rival contentions at length and perused the material available on record. 6. It is now well settled that no sanction is required if on the date of cognizance, an accused continues to be a public servant but in a different capacity or is holding a different office than the one alleged to have been abused. For this preposition kindly see Abhay Singh Chautala v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [ (2011)7 SCC 141 ]. 7. This has also been reiterated in the case of L. Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka and others, reported in [ (2016)9 SCC 598 ]. For this preposition kindly see Abhay Singh Chautala v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [ (2011)7 SCC 141 ]. 7. This has also been reiterated in the case of L. Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka and others, reported in [ (2016)9 SCC 598 ]. Perusal of the decision shows that if on the date of taking cognizance of the alleged offence, the government servant ceased to hold the office which he had held as public servant at the time of commission of alleged offence, then sanction is not required for his prosecution. Learned trial Judge has committed no illegality or irregularity in dismissing the application filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 8. In view of foregoing discussion, we do not find any jurisdictional error with the order impugned calling for interference on our part. There is no merit and substance in the present revision petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed summarily. 9. Ordered accordingly.