Allowed

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Dec 2010CRM-M/10974/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of charge framing and sanction order. Competent Authority had earlier declined sanction, which was later placed on record. Court allowed petition and directed trial court to pass fresh order considering the non-sancion order.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order dated 3.3.2009 set aside; trial Court directed to pass fresh order considering the order dated 30.5.2008.

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of Haryana — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M- 10974 of 2009 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 10974 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 2, 2010

Ashok Kumar Yadav

........Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

........Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶12

Present : Mr. O.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ranjeeta Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana.

¶14

Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for Mr. Parshant Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶15

SABINA, J.

¶16

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 3.3.2009 vide which the charge has been ordered to be framed and also the charges framed on the even date and the order granting sanction for prosecution dated 19.6.2008 by the competent authority in FIR No.11 dated 22.2.2008, under Sections 7,13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station S.V.B Hisar.

¶17

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier sanction for prosecution of the petitioner was declined vide order dated 30.5.2008. The said order was placed on record before the trial Court but despite the said fact the trial Court has held in the impugned order that

¶18

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M- 10974 of 2009 (O&M)

¶20

the said order was not on record. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on affidavit filed by the counsel for the petitioner, wherein he has stated that the copy of the order dated 30.5.2008 had been placed on record.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that the order dated 30.5.2008 was not available on record.

¶22

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.

¶23

Admittedly, vide order dated 30.5.2008 the Competent Authority had declined to grant sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. While declining the sanction of prosecution, the Competent Authority held as under :-

¶24

“And whereas, in view of above report it is very clear that the TDS deductions were carried out during the year 2004-2006 and certificates in this regards had been issued and sent to the income Tax Department in the same financial year. The complainant has not been able to explain beyond reasonable doubt, the reasons for the delay of a period almost 2 years in making request for refund against such TDS deductions that too from the JE, who is not concerned with processing such request. Therefore, there does not appear to sufficient justification for demand of Rs.30,000/- by the JE and prima facie case is not made out against the official.

¶25

Keeping in view above facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the report of Executive Engineer/Superintending Engineer, I do not find sufficient

¶26

Crl. Misc. No. M- 10974 of 2009 (O&M)

¶27

¶28

ground to grant sanction for prosecution against Sh. Ashok Kumar Yadav, JE in public interest under section 197 of Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of the PC Act and the same is therefore, rejected.”

¶29

Thereafter, the Competent Authority has granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner vide order dated 17.6.2008 without referring to the order dated 30.5.2008. The learned trial Court while passing the impugned order whereby charge was ordered to be framed against the petitioner had held that the order dated 30.5.2008 was not on record. Since now the order has been placed on record before this Court, it would be just and expedient and in the interest of justice to direct the trial Court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after taking into consideration the order dated 30.5.2008.

¶30

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.3.2009 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after taking into consideration the implication of order dated 30.5.2008.

¶31

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶32

December 2, 2010 Anand

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saroop Singh and Othrs Vs State of Pb and Ors.

Pasha Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rajeev Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Haryana

Balwinder Singh Vs Gurmit Singh

Kuldip Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.