Dismissed

Jagdish Mohan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2023A482/1007/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and charge sheet involving alleged corruption. The court held that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not mandate dropping criminal prosecution as the latter requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is for the trial court to decide. However, the court ordered expediti

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; accused to surrender for bail consideration within 15 days.

Jagdish Mohan Vs State of U.P. and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1007 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jagdish Mohan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Tripathi B.G. Bhai,Pramod Kumar Singh

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Tripathi B.G.Bhai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 06.10.2017, cognizance order dated 24.11.2017 passed by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act), Varanasi as well as entire criminal proceedings of Special Trial No.31 of 2017 (State vs Jagdish Mohan) arising out of Case Crime No.179 of 2001, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(C)(D) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kydganj, District Allahabad, now pending in the Court of Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act), Varanasi.

¶8

The accused petitioner was posted as Superintending Engineer in the Irrigation Department. The open inquiry was held in respect of the work done at Sarswati Ghat Scheme, Allahabad. A tender was floated for carrying out the work for construction of Ghat and pathway etc. and the agreement was entered into with M/s S.P. Gupta, Partner of Jamuna Construction Company, 30 Paper Mills Colony, Lucknow on 12.04.1989. The total amount of work for which the agreement was executed for Rs.2,50,285/-. It was found that the total payment made to the said contractor was Rs.4,83,000/-. The ground for making extra payment of more than Rs.45% that

¶9

contractor had executed extra earthen work.

¶10

Upon inquiry, it was found that contractor had not undertaken any extra work and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy to benefit the contractor, the documents were forged and he was made extra payment.

¶11

On the basis of said allegations and upon inquiry, FIR in question came to be registered against the accused- petitioner and other persons working as Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer and Contractor. After investigation of the offence, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet for commission of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, 13(1) (C)(D) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶12

Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the accusedpetitioner has submitted that the accused petitioner was examined in the departmental proceedings for the same charge. He has placed on record the inquiry report in the departmental proceedings against the accused petitioner. The said inquiry report was accepted by the Government on 26th September, 1996. The FIR in question has been registered only in the year 2001. He submits that once the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the accused petitioner cannot be proceeded in furtherance of the charge sheet filed by the investigating officer on conclusion of the investigation. He has also submitted that the summoning order has been passed without application of mind, and therefore, the charge sheet as well as entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel he has placed reliance on the judgement in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and another reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636 .

¶13

On the other hand, Sri Ratnendra Kumar Singh, Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for quashing of the proceedings and submitted that charge sheet would disclose commission of offence committed by the accused petitioner in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with other co-accused. There is enough evidence on record for more than prima facie case against the accused petitioner. It is also submitted that the departmental proceedings are based on preponderance of probability, whereas in a criminal case, offence has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The outcome of the departmental proceedings cannot be binding on the competent court, however, vice verca where a person is acquitted in the trial court on merit, the departmental proceedings may be quashed.

¶14

I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the parties and allegations against the accused petitioner and other co-accused that they, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, had manufactured/ prepared forged documents to benefit the private persons/ contractor and they had allegedly got executed more than 45% extra work though as per law to the extent of only 10% extra work could be executed. During investigation, it was found that no such work was executed on ground and extra payment was made to the contractor by manufacturing the documents.

¶15

The issue of departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings against a person has come up for consideration in several cases, and it has been held that the departmental proceedings are based on preponderance of probability, whereas in criminal proceedings, guilt of accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubts. The case of Radheyshyam Kejriwal vs State of West Bengal and another reported in 2011 (3) SCC 581 has no relevance in respect of departmental proceedings, inasmuch as, the said case was in respect of the

¶16

adjudication proceedings by the competent court in proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. There the competent court had exonerated the accused in the offence committed under Section 3/4 of the PMLA Act, 2002 therefore, the Supreme Court held that once the competent court of jurisdiction found that the accused had not committed an offence under the PMLA Act, the continuation of the proceedings in respect of the substantive offence would not be justified.

¶17

The inquiry oficer cannot be equated with the trial court. Inquiry report can never be binding on the trial court. The trial court has to examine the evidence and find out whether the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt or not. If on trial, the trial court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts, he may be acquitted. However, merely on the ground since the accused has been exonerated in departmental proceedings, the criminal proceedings cannot be dropped against him.

¶18

The Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari (Supra) while taking survey of several judgements has held that in the case of the exoneration on merit where the allegations are found to be not sustainable at all and person held innocent, criminal prosecution on same set of facts and circumstances would not be justified.

¶19

The said observations of the Supreme Court is on the basis of judgement in the case of Radheyshyam Kejriwal (supra) which is not the judgement in case of departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings. In the present case, the question involved is whether the accused petitioner and other co-accused have benefited to a private person i.e. contractor by forging documents or not. This is question of evidence which can be

¶20

decided by the trial court. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot examine the said issue. Therefore, the present application being devoid of merits and substance and is hereby dismissed.

¶21

However, it is provided that if the accused petitioner surrenders before the trial court within fifteen days from today and applies for regular bail, his bail application shall be considered expeditiously and in accordance with law, keeping in mind the fact that the accused petitioner retired from service long back in the year 1996 and he is aged about 84 years now coupled with the fact that the offence is of the year 1989-90. It shall also be bear in mind that the charge sheet has already been filed and no further investigation is pending.

¶22

Order Date :- 13.2.2023 A.Kr.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- AJAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jagdish Mohan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Mohan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Vs Lakhpat Rai

Abdul Hameed Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhagwan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kailash Chand Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Ishwari Devi Vs State of U.P.