Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1380 (ALL)

Manoj Kumar Niranjan v. State of U. P.

2025-12-03

ACHAL SACHDEV, SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Achal Sachdev, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. 2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayer:- "(i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.2, 3, 4 to consider the evidence/documents produced by the petitioner in investigation of Case Crime No.0001 of 2023, under section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Bareilly Sector (Vigilance Establishment), District U.P. Vigilance Establishment according to the provision of para-107 of the U.P. Police Regulation and in pursuance of the order dated 27.05.2024 of respondent no.1. (ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.4 to conduct and conclude investigation of Case Crime No.0001 of 2023, under section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Bareilly Sector (Vigilance Establishment), District U.P. Vigilance Establishment, within stipulated time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. The petitioner in his petition has submitted that on 15.10.2009 he was appointed as Assistant Engineer in Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and after getting promotion now he is discharging his duties as Executive Engineer. During entire service period of petitioner neither any illegalities nor irregularities have been found against the petitioner or any complaint were filed or made against him by anyone and his entire service record was unblemished. On 08.12.2020 the respondent no.1 has ordered for initiating Open Vigilance Inquiry against the petitioner regarding disproportionate asset which is numbered as Open Inquiry No.183 of 2020 for the check period 01.01.2012 to 30.06.2017. Thereafter the vigilance inquiry was conducted and concluded by the Vigilance Establishment, Bareilly Sector Bareilly and report was submitted before the respondent no.1 regarding the inquiry on 18.03.2021. The petitioner has cooperated in the inquiry and had supplied all the relevant documents regarding the assets acquired during the check period, including his salary, agriculture income, income from rents and income received from other sources etc., however inquiry officer has not considered the same and submitted report with recommendation for permission of investigation under section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as amended. On 16.12.2022 the respondent no.1 has granted permission for registering the FIR and conducting investigation under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, hence the Vigilance Inquiry Officer has lodged FIR on 18.03.2023 against the petitioner which is registered as Case Crime No.0001 of 2023, under section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as amended, at Police Station Bareilly Sector (Vigilance Establishment), District U.P. Vigilance Establishment. Thereafter on 07.112023 the petitioner has received notice issued by the office of the respondent no.3 for getting recorded the statement in investigation of the aforesaid criminal case. In pursuance of the notice dated 07.11.2023 the petitioner got his statement recorded on 20.11.2023 and also submitted the entire relevant documents/evidence pertaining to the source of income during the check period. The investigating officer of the case i.e. respondent no.4 also has not considered the documents/evidences produced by the petitioner before him for explaining satisfactorily about the source of income of the petitioner. In such compelling circumstances the petitioner has moved the representations before the respondent no.1 on 05.01.2024, 25.4.2024 and 01.05.2024 and also submitted entire evidence for explaining source of income. Thereafter respondent no.1 considering the representations of petitioner has passed an order on 27.05.2024 and directed the respondent no.2 i.e. Director, Vigilance to consider and include the points mentioned in the representations and also consider the evidence in the investigation of the aforesaid criminal case. During the investigation the respondent no.4 called for report from the Tehsil of home district of petitioner and the Tehsildar, Tehsil Jalaun District Jalaun has submitted detailed report dated 14.10.2024, which showed head wise income received from the different crops and also mentioned his income from cash crops. The impugned FIR shows that the petitioner had earned an amount of Rs.14,37,427/- in excess from the valid source of income and in this regard the petitioner in his statement before the investigating officer has categorically mentioned the income gain during check period with evidence, which was not considered during the open inquiry. This was in violation of the provisions of paragraph no.107 of the Police Regulation. The mandatory provision of Explanation-I of section 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act had also not been complied with. 4. This was in violation of the provisions of paragraph no.107 of the Police Regulation. The mandatory provision of Explanation-I of section 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act had also not been complied with. 4. Aggrieved by the act of respondent no.4 the petitioner again made a representation before the respondent no.1 on 21.07.2025, citing violation of mandatory rules and regulations that had to be followed during investigation. It was also stated that the act of respondent no.4 was arbitrary and against the principal of natural justice. Non consideration of valid sources of income of the petitioner will adversely affect the petitioner in defending his case. The petitioner is innocent and law abiding person and has not committed any offence as alleged. The investigation of the aforesaid case is pending since 2023 and about 2 years have passed but the respondent no.4 was not intending to conclude the investigation of the case. The cardinal principle of law is that delay in justice amounts to denial of justice and the right to speedy justice is fundamental right of the petitioner. 5. Perusal of record shows that an FIR dated 18.03.2023 under section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered on the basis of inquiry report conducted by Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment, Bareilly Sector Bareilly, in compliance of the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment, confidential letter No.1464/39-1-20- 2M(1)/2019 dated 08.12.2020, in regard to an excess income of the petitioner from unknown sources of Rs.14,37,427/- for the check period of 01.01.2012 to 30.06.2017. The respondent no.4 is Inspector/investigating officer of Vigilance Establishment, Bareilly Sector, Bareilly. The petitioner in his petition has admitted the fact that he had received notice on 17.11.2023, issued by the office of respondent no.3 for getting recorded his statement in the investigation of the aforesaid case crime and his statement was recorded on 20.11.2023. The petitioner further stated that he has submitted the entire relevant documents and evidence pertaining to his source of income during the check period before the respondent no.3/ Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Establishment, Bareilly Sector, Bareilly. 6. From the above submission made by the petitioner in his petition it is clear that he has availed the opportunity of putting his case before the investigating officer and he had also provided all the relevant evidence and documents for the check period in question to the respondent no.3. 6. From the above submission made by the petitioner in his petition it is clear that he has availed the opportunity of putting his case before the investigating officer and he had also provided all the relevant evidence and documents for the check period in question to the respondent no.3. Nowhere in his petition the petitioner has stated that the respondent no.4 had refused to take the relevant documents and evidence pertaining to source of income of the petitioner during the check period. 7. The High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 528 BNSS / 482 Cr.P.C. cannot direct the investigating officer to collect the specific evidence or accept particular documents tendered by the accused. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitya Dharmananda v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy , (2018) 2 SCC 93 has held that High Court in writ jurisdiction or in exercise of jurisdiction under section 528 BNSS/ 482 Cr.P.C. cannot micromanage investigation or convert themselves into investigating organizations. The disproportionate asset cases under section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are evidence intensive. The prosecution must prove assets disproportionate to the known sources of income, and the accused can explain the reason of the source of income at the trial stage. If the accused earlier was given notice/opportunity during investigation to submit explanation/document and he did so, the refusal by the investigating office to accept further/later documents does not normally violate natural justice or fairness, as the accused can produce them as defence evidence during trial (313 CrPC/ 351 BNSS , defence witness under section 243 CrPC/ 266 BNSS in documents under section 294 CrPC/ 330 BNSS). In extraordinary circumstances, when refusal to accept documents may cause miscarriage of justice or is patently malafide and arbitary, or violate rights under Article 21 of the India Constitution that the High Court may issue directions to consider the material evidence or conduct limited further inquiry. 8. In extraordinary circumstances, when refusal to accept documents may cause miscarriage of justice or is patently malafide and arbitary, or violate rights under Article 21 of the India Constitution that the High Court may issue directions to consider the material evidence or conduct limited further inquiry. 8. In the light of averments made by the petitioner in his petition and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitya Dharmananda Case(Supra), we do not find it necessary to direct the investigating officer to reconsider the evidence/documents produced by the petitioner in investigation of Case Crime No.0001 of 2023, under section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Bareilly Sector (Vigilance Establishment), District U.P. Vigilance Establishment, hence the relief no.1, as prayed by the petitioner is declined. 9. In so far as the relief no.2 is concerned, giving direction to the investigating agencies to conclude the investigation in time bound manner, where the petitioner himself has repeatedly interfered in the progress of the investigation through his repeated representations, also cannot be granted to the petitioner. Any directions of that kind would also amount to interfering in the investigation of the case. 10. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere in the matter and the petition thus lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed.