# Ashutosh Pathak v. State Of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 1065 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-27 - **Bench:** Pramod Kumar Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashutosh-pathak-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43958 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text 7 All. Ashutosh Pathak Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 1065 6. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant- Susheela Devi, involved in Case Crime No. 900 of 2015, u/s 306, 120B I.P.C., P.S.- Aliganj, District- Etah, be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :- (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and her personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. 8. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 9. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Application U/S 482 No.- 22137 Of 2016 Ashutosh Pathak ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for Applicant: Santosh Kumar Shukla, Surya Pratap Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Parties: G.A. 1066 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Territorial Jurisdiction - Coal Supply under Sponsorship System - Cause of Action- Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 101 - Burden of Proof - Elementary Rule - Proof of Payment - Bank Drafts - Non-disclosure of Particulars - Adverse Inference - Concluded Contract - Proof of Allotment - Supply of Coal - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 482 - Cr.P.C. - Locus Standi - Criminal Jurisprudence - Principle of locus standi has no application - Any member of public may initiate criminal proceedings where public money is involved - The principle of locus standi, which governs civil proceedings, has no application in criminal jurisprudence. Where public money is alleged to have been misappropriated, any member of the public has the right to set the criminal law in motion and initiate a complaint case against the persons found to be guilty. The mere fact that the complainant may not be a personally aggrieved party does not deprive him of the right to institute a criminal complaint. The further contention that the accused had already deposited the amount of Rs. 38,980/- each pursuant to directions in other proceedings before this Court, does not ipso facto entitle the accused to have the criminal proceedings quashed, as settlement or deposit of money cannot be a ground for obliterating criminal liability for offences involving public funds. Held: Objection as to locus standi of complainant rejected. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 197 - Prosecution Sanction - Gram Panchayat Adhikari - Alleged misappropriation of public funds - Whether act done in discharge of official duty - Question of fact - To be decided by trial court - May also be considered at stage of framing of charge - Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under S. 482 - Not to be exercised to interdict proceedings at summoning stage when no illegality or impropriety is apparent - The requirement of prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. arises only when the alleged act is committed by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, or when such act has a reasonable nexus with the official duty. The determination of whether the alleged act of misappropriation of public funds by the applicant - who was posted as Gram Panchayat Adhikari at the relevant time - was done in discharge of his official duty or not, is a question of fact which cannot be decided at the stage of summoning without evidence. This question is appropriately to be determined by the trial court, either upon an application moved by the applicant after his appearance and surrender, or at the stage of framing of charge. The summoning order having been passed after due appreciation of facts, evidence and procedure, and no illegality or impropriety being apparent in the proceedings before the trial court, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not warranted at this stage. Held: Application dismissed; applicant directed to appear before trial court immediately. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the records. 2. Complaint case is being carried out against applicant Ashutosh Pathak and Gram Pradhan, Raipur Pokhta for offences of cheating and misappropriation of public money. In said matter, applicant and co-accused had been summoned for offences under Sections 420, 409 IPC. The proceedings of this concerned complaint case no. 5466/2015 is under challenge through present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that after approaching the matter in different proceeding before this Court and under direction of the Court, both the accused persons including applicant had deposited the amount of Rs. 38,980/- each, for which they were found 7 All. Gyan Singh Vs State Of U.P. 1067 liable. His contention was that in these circumstances, no proceeding should be carried out. His further argument was that complainant has no locus standi to file complaint case. His next argument was that the alleged act was done by applicant in discharge of his official duty, because applicant was posted as Gram Panchayat Adhikari at the time of incident, so without prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., the proceedings before trial court cannot be carried out. 4. These contentions were refuted by learned AGA. 5. So far argument of right to institute criminal complaint by private person is concerned, it is settled legal position that principle of locus standi has no application in criminal jurisprudence. Public money was involved in this matter, for which any person of public has right to initiate criminal proceeding against guilty person. 6. So far matter of prosecution sanction and alleged act being done in discharge of official duty is concerned, this is settled legal position that if any overt act is committed during discharge of duty, then prosecution sanction is required. But it has to be decided whether the alleged act of misappropriation of fund comes within official discharge of duty of applicant or not. This matter may be decided by trial court, if application in that regard is moved by applicant after appearance and surrender before the court below. Again this matter may be considered at the stage of framing of charge. 7. The impugned summoning order has been passed after appreciating facts and evidences and after following procedure of law. There appears no illegality or impropriety in the proceedings being carried out before trial court that may require exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court at this stage. Therefore, this application is dismissed. 8. Applicant is directed to appear before trial court immediately. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 22281 Of 2015 Gyan Singh ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Applicant: Sanjay Srivastava, Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun