TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 1361
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l appeal no. 1764 of 2019, both titled, Ram Sagar Vs Central bureau of Investigation, before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment and order dated 26.11.2019, allowed both the appeals and remitted the matter to this Court to decide afresh, in accordance with law. 3) Said judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in both the appeals, is extracted hereunder: "Leave granted. The High Court, in our considered opinion, has not considered the allegations made in the charge-sheet relating to the contract matter. It has dealt with only in respect of the appointments and interpolation of the record. We also find that the reasons assigned are not sufficient to come to the conclusion. Therefore, in our considered opinion, interest of justice would be met in case the matter is reheard by the High Court so as to enable both the parties to put forth their respective case. The impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh hearing on the aspect of framing of charge / discharge based on the material on record collected in both the charge sheets. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed. We ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal Code. Learned court below has dismissed said applications on 25.08.2015, observing that making selection and appointment may have been the official duty of the revisionist, but making appointment illegally and interpolation in the records cannot be termed as acts done in discharge of official duties. It was also observed that acts done by the revisionist cannot be termed as acts done in discharge of official duty. Thus, there is no requirement of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. for launching prosecution against the revisionist. Challenging the order dated 25.08.2015, whereby the applications for discharge were dismissed by the trial court, revisionist preferred two criminal revisions, bearing nos. 319 & 320 of 2015 before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The same were dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 06.10.2016 with liberty to move fresh revisions. 8) Since there was no interim order granted in favour of the revisionist, the trial court framed charges against the revisionist vide order dated 05.12.2015. Following charges were framed against the revisionist by the trial court on 05.12.2015, in CBI case no. 05 of 2014: Firstly, that you while posted a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 420 of IPC and within the cognizance of this Court. Thirdly, that you in the aforesaid period, place and manner fraudulently or dishonestly in the payment of contract work to contract firm paid an excess amount of 70,81,346/- as a wrongful gain and wrongful loss to Govt. (ARIES) and thus cheated ARISE by abusing your official position as public servant by adopting wrong formula for payment of contract work in the course of mutual conspiracy. Thus misused your official position as public servant and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 within the cognizance of this Court. 9) Following charges were framed against the revisionist by the trial court on 05.12.2015, in CBI case no. 04 of 2014: Firstly, that you while posted and acting as Director, ARIES, Manora Peak, Nainital (Uttarakhand) during the years 2008-09 entered into criminal conspiracy with Shri Om Prakash, and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy you appointed Om Prakash as Engineer 'C' Civil instead of the advertised post of Engineer 'B' Civil in ARIES, Manora Peak, Nainital by making false entries of words, 'for another persons' and 'Na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this Court. 10) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 11) Learned counsel for the revisionist would argue that so far the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is concerned, the revisionist is not challenging that part of the charge. However, learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that since the prosecution did not obtain the sanction from the department to prosecute the revisionist in respect of offences punishable under the Penal Code, as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., thus the trial cannot proceed in respect of charges under IPC. 12) Though the matter has been remitted by Hon'ble Apex Court to this Court to consider the case on the aspect of framing of charge / discharge based on the material on record, however, neither any ground is raised in the memo of criminal revisions nor any argument has been advanced in this regard by learned counsel for the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist has confined his argument that as no sanction for prosecution has been obtained by the CBI under Section 197 of Cr.P.C., in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the High Court missed these crucial aspects. The learned Magistrate has correctly taken the view that if at all the said view of sanction is to be construed, it could be done at the stage of trial only." 15) Learned counsel for CBI vehemently argued that since the FIR was not lodged by any individual or the department against the revisionist, therefore, sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not required at all. In the counter affidavit filed by the CBI it is specifically stated that after framing of charges, out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, 05 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. 16) Admittedly, the FIR was lodged under the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) no. 07 of 2012, vide order dated 16.04.2013, directing the CBI to lodge the FIR on the basis of allegations made in the WPPIL and investigate the matter on the basis of said FIR. Thus, when the FIR itself was lodged under the directions of the PIL Court, the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not required at all. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was mandatory to prosecute the revisioni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../ discharge, on merit. 20) Having gone through the charges framed by the court below against the revisionist under Sections 120B, 420, 477A of IPC, in C.B.I. case no. 04 of 2014, as also under Sections 120B, 420 of IPC, in C.B.I. case no. 05 of 2014 and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the charges in respect of selfsame offences have been framed on the evidence available on record and this Court is convinced that prima facie the charges in respect of the selfsame offences are made out against the revisionist. Perusal of the material brought on record would depict that there is sufficient evidence on record that the revisionist while holding the post of Director, ARIES, has adopted wrong formula in violation of the contract agreement laid down under CPWD manuals, thereby paid excess payment to the contractor, besides fraudulently appointing a candidate of his choice on higher post instead of post advertised, which was for lower post, by making interpolation in the official records and also cheated the members of the selection committee; made alteration in the official records fraudulently for the purpose of cheating which clearly resu....