Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 505 (MP)

N. P. Namdeo v. State of M. P.

2018-05-17

NANDITA DUBEY, 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 13.3.2018 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Satna in Special Case No. 300005/2016 whereby application under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been rejected. 2. Brief facts, which are not disputed and necessary for the disposal of the present petition are as under : 3. At the relevant point of time, applicant was working as Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Satna and he is a public servant. Allegation against the applicant is that in violation of the procedure laid down in the Bhandar Kray Niyam, he approved disbursement of the inflated amount for purchase of fly catchers for Municipal Corporation, Satna and thereby causing loss of Rs. 9,54,031/-. 4. Applicant is one of the accused who is facing criminal trial before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Satna, for the offences punishable under sections 13 (1)(d), 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. A private complaint was made to EOW, Bhopal by one Mr. Vijay Tripathi alleging that the applicant along with other coaccused persons embezzled the public money and misused their powers and committed forgery. 5. After completing the investigation, the material collected during the investigation was placed to accord sanction for prosecution. After obtaining sanction for prosecution, chargesheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Satna. After cognizance was taken, applicant filed an application under section 19 of the P.C. Act which has been rejected by the learned Trial Judge by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 6. It is pertinent to mention that before the present revision petition, applicant had filed MCrC No. 13464/2016 for quashing of the charge-sheet, however that petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.11.2016 with liberty to raise all the grounds at the time of framing of charges. Thereafter, applicant had filed Criminal Revision No. 1067/2017 which too was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.10.2017 with liberty to raise all the questions of law and facts at the appropriate stage before the learned trial Court. Now, the present petition. Thereafter, applicant had filed Criminal Revision No. 1067/2017 which too was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.10.2017 with liberty to raise all the questions of law and facts at the appropriate stage before the learned trial Court. Now, the present petition. It is also pertinent to mention that recently, we have taken a view in Criminal Revision No. 1727/2018 (Ashok Rana v. Special Police Establishment and others) decided on 10.5.2018 that proper stage to raise all these questions is at the time of defence. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the applicant at length and going through the material placed on record, we do not find any merit and substance in the petition. 8. In the case of Prakash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 1 , their Lordships’ of the Supreme Court have held in paragraph 50 as under : “50. The offence of cheating under section 420 or for that matter offences relatable to sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B can be no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by any public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. In such cases, official status only provides an opportunity for commission of the offence.” 9. In the case of State of U.P. v. Paras Nath Singh, reported in 2009 CriLJ 3069, it has been heldby their Lordships’ in paras 10 and 11 as under : “10. That apart, the contention of the respondent that for offences under sections 406 and 409 read with section 120B of IPC sanction under section 197 of the Code is a condition precedent for launching the prosecution is equally fallacious. This Court has stated the legal position in S.R. Munnipalli v. State of Bombay ( 1955 (1) SCR 1177 ) and in Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu (1955 RD-SC 9) that it is not every offence committed by a public servant, which requires sanction for prosecution under section 197 of the Code, nor even every act done by him while he is actually engaged in the performance of his official duties. Following the above legal position it was held in Harihar Prasad, etc. Following the above legal position it was held in Harihar Prasad, etc. v. State of Bihar (1972) 3 SCC 89 ) as follows : ‘As far as the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under section 120B, read with section 409, Indian Penal Code is concerned and also section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, they cannot be said to be of the nature mentioned in section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To put it shortly, it is no part of the duty of a public servant, while discharging his official duties, to enter into a criminal conspiracy or to indulge in criminal misconduct. Want of sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is, therefore, no bar.’ 11. Above views are reiterated in State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair (1999) 5 SCC 690 . Both Amrik Singh (supra), and S.R. Munnipalli (supra), were noted in that case. Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC relate to forgery of valuable security, Will etc; forgery for purpose of cheating and using as genuine a forged document respectively. It is no part of the duty of a public servant while discharging his official duties to commit forgery of the type covered by the aforesaid offences. Want of sanction under section 197 of the Code is, therefore, no bar.” 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the statement of law, we do not find any merit and substance in the present Criminal revision, therefore, the same being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed. 11. Ordered accordingly.