# Dr. Syed Fareed Haider Rizvi @ Dr. S.F.H. Rizvi v. C.B.I. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 714
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-29
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 8292 of 2018
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-syed-fareed-haider-rizvi-dr-s-f-h-rizvi-v-c-b-i-opp-party-49178
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - The Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946 - Section 6 -
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
Section 19 - Prosecution of public servant
- C.B.I. enquiry in compliance of order of
High Court was initiated - No prior
sanction of competent authority was
taken - Effect - Consent of the St., how
far
is
required
-
Held,
where
the
investigation of an offence has been
entrusted to the CBI pursuant to the order
passed by the Constitutional Court and
role of a public servant comes as an
accused for committing such an offence,
no prior sanction under Section 19 PC Act
would be required for prosecuting such a
public servant. (Para 18)
B. Criminal Law - Amendment in the
statute - Relevant date of it's applicability
- Held, the relevant date for applicability
of Law in respect of a crime would be the
date
of
commission
of
the
crime.
Subsequent amendment in the statute
would not govern the investigation and
prosecution of an accused for an offence
which
was
committed
before
the
Amendment in the statute came into
force. (Para 19)
Application rejected. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

714 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the appropriate government is obtained
under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and/or Section 170 of the
Karnataka Police Act." (Emphasis added)

19. As discussed in the penultimate
paragraph that there are documents which
shows that after arrest of victim he was
admitted in hospital in injured condition and
was put under treatment. The injuries were of
serious nature and Magistrate while granting
order of remand not only visited the hospital
but interacted with victim also. Further, after
arrested of victim on 02.12.1999 he was
remained
admitted
in
hospital
from
02.12.1999 to 04.12.1999 when he was
referred to Spinal Care Unit, KGMC,
Lucknow and on way to said hospital on
04.12.1999 he died. In these circumstances
the test, whether prior sanction is necessary is
a satisfaction that alleged act has reasonable
connection with official duty or not. It cannot
be held, ignoring the documents on record,
that act of applicant, a police personnel, was
unconnected with official duty.

20. In these circumstances, considering
the principle enumerated in Ch. Bhajan Lal
(supra), specifically that, "where there is an
express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution or continuance of
proceedings.....", and as discussed above that
in facts and circumstances of present case
there was a bar under Section 197 Cr.P.C. to
proceed against applicant, a police personnel,
when alleged offence was committed by him
while acting or purporting to act in discharge
of official duty, no Court shall take
cognizance of such offence except with
previous sanction.

21. As discussed above, the act alleged
has atleast reasonable connection with
official duty of applicant, therefore, without
any prior sanction, as required under Section
197 Cr.P.C. criminal proceedings initiated
against applicant are erroneous and illegal.
Further, documents on record are not refuted
by complainant, therefore, in view of
judgment passed by Supreme Court in Rajiv
Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor
(2013) 3 SCC 330, these documents can be
considered to secure the ends of justice.

22. The outcome of above discussion is
that the criminal proceedings initiated against
applicant in Complaint Case No. 3848 of
2010 (Smt. Sairoon vs. Jitendra Nath Singh
and others), under Sections 147, 148, 149,
302 IPC as well as impugned orders dated
10.01.2022 passed by Sessions Judge,
Shahjahanpur in Criminal Revision No. 58 of
2021 (Madan Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. and
another)
and
summoning
order
dated
28.09.2010
passed
by
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Shahjahanpur,
are
hereby
quashed. However, complainant will have
liberty to sought sanction as required under
Section 197 Cr.P.C., if so advised, to initiated
any criminal proceeding against the applicant
in accordance with law.

23. The application is accordingly
allowed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 714
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 8292 of 2018

Dr. Syed Fareed Haider Rizvi @ Dr. S.F.H.
Rizvi ...Applicant
Versus
C.B.I. ...Opp. Party
1 All. Dr. Syed Fareed Haider Rizvi @ Dr. S.F.H. Rizvi Vs. C.B.I.
715
Counsel for the Applicant:
Nandit Kumar Srivastava, Prnajal Krishna

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Bireshwar Nath

A. Criminal Law - The Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, 1946 - Section 6 -
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
Section 19 - Prosecution of public servant
- C.B.I. enquiry in compliance of order of
High Court was initiated - No prior
sanction of competent authority was
taken - Effect - Consent of the St., how
far
is
required
-
Held,
where
the
investigation of an offence has been
entrusted to the CBI pursuant to the order
passed by the Constitutional Court and
role of a public servant comes as an
accused for committing such an offence,
no prior sanction under Section 19 PC Act
would be required for prosecuting such a
public servant. (Para 18)
B. Criminal Law - Amendment in the
statute - Relevant date of it's applicability
- Held, the relevant date for applicability
of Law in respect of a crime would be the
date
of
commission
of
the
crime.
Subsequent amendment in the statute
would not govern the investigation and
prosecution of an accused for an offence
which
was
committed
before
the
Amendment in the statute came into
force. (Para 19)
Application rejected. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. St. of Telangana Vs Managipet @ Mangipet
Sarveshwar Reddy; (2019) 19 SCC 87
2. Kaushlesh Kumar Sinha Vs CBI; 2018 SCC
OnLine All 5546

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1.

Heard
Mr.
Nandit
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
Senior
Counsel,
assisted by Mr. J.P. Awasthi and Mr. Mohd.
Ibrahim Khan Advocates, representing the
applicant as well as Mr. Anurag Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent -
CBI, and gone through the record.

2. This application under Section 482
of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as the "CrPC") has
been filed, impugning the order dated
13.12.2018, issuing non-bailable warrants
of arrest against the applicant in connection
with Criminal Case No.1968 of 2018 (CBI
Vs. Sachidanand Dubey and others) under
Sections 120-B read with Sections 420 and
409 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as the "IPC") and Sections 13(2)
read
with
Sections
13(1)(d)
of
the
Prevention
of
Corruption
Act,
1988
(hereinafter referred to as the "PC Act"),
pending in the Court of learned Special
Judge, CBI, Court No. 2, Lucknow, arising
out of Crime No. RC0062014A0008
lodged
at
Police
Station
CBI/ACB,
Lucknow.

3. The applicant was a public servant,
employed/posted as District Development
Officer, Balrampur during the years 2007 to
2009; at the relevant time, large scale of
financial bungling, gross irregularities and
misappropriation of public funds allocated
under the National Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme (hereinafter referred to
as the "NREGS") was reported to have
been done by the then government
officers/officials in criminal conspiracy and
connivance with the private suppliers in
purchase of stationery and other materials.

4. Public Interest Litigation Petition
No.12802 (M/B) of 2011 came to be filed
by Mr. Sachchidanand Gupta before this
Court regarding large scale corruption,
bungling and misappropriation of NREGS
funds by the Block Development Officers
716 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and other government officers/officials in
connivance with the private suppliers in the
centralized purchase of stationery and other
items worth Rs. 1,81,18,602/- on exorbitant
price by the then Chief Development
Officer, Project Director, D.R.D.A. and
other officers of District Balrampur. These
government officers/officials and private
persons had allegedly caused huge loss to
the government exchequer and made
corresponding gains to themselves. A
prayer was made for registration of the FIR
and investigation by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the
"CBI").

5. This Court, vide judgment and
order dated 31.01.2014 passed Public
Interest Litigation Petition No.12802 (M/B)
of 2011, issued a Mandamus directing the
CBI
to
investigate
the
abuse
and
misappropriation of funds allocated under
the NREGS with regard to seven districts
of
State
of
Uttar
Pradesh,
namely,
Balrampur, Gonda, Mahoba, Sonbhadra,
Sant
Kabir
Nagar,
Mirzapur
and
Kushinagar during the years 2007 to 2010
and take appropriate action and prosecute
the persons involved, in accordance with
law.

6. Pursuant to the said order, reports
of State Quality Monitor (hereinafter
referred to as "SQM") in respect of seven
districts, mentioned above, for the relevant
period, were examined by the CBI. It was
revealed that in District Balrampur during
the period 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 large
scale financial bungling, gross irregularities
and misappropriation of NREGS funds had
been found to have been done by the Block
Development Officer and other government
officers/officials in connivance with private
suppliers in the central purchase of
stationery and other items wroth Rs.
1,81,18,602/- on exorbitant price by the
then Chief Development Officer, Project
Director, D.R.D.A. and other officers of
District Balrampur in connivance with the
private suppliers and thereby they had
caused a huge loss to the government
exchequer and made corresponding gains to
themselves.

7. A regular case, mentioned above,
got registered against the then Chief
Development Officer, Project Director and
other officers/officials of the District
Balrampur along with the private suppliers.

8. The CBI after conducting a
thorough investigation, lodged the FIR on
21.02.2014 and filed charge-sheet under
Section 173(2) CrPC dated 15.11.2018
under Section 120-B read with Sections
420 and 409 IPC and Sections 13(2) read
with Sections 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and
substantive offences thereof.

9. The CBI found the applicant as one
of the architects of the crime, who was
posted at the relevant time as District
Development Officer, Balrampur. However,
he got retired from service when the
charge-sheet came to be filed.

10. The learned trial Court took
cognizance on 23.11.2018 and issued
summons for appearance of the applicant
and co-accused on 30.11.2018.

11. The applicant did not appear on
30.11.2018 and thereafter non-bailable
warrants of arrest were issued.

12. The only ground, which has been
urged by Mr. Nandit Kumar Srivastava,
learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the
applicant, is that without seeking sanction
from the competent authority, the order,
1 All. Dr. Syed Fareed Haider Rizvi @ Dr. S.F.H. Rizvi Vs. C.B.I.
717
taking cognizance on charge-sheet and
further proceedings, including issuance of
non-bailable warrants of arrest, are nullity.
The learned Senior Counsel has submitted
that in view of amendment in PC Act
(Amending Act No. 16 of 2018) the
sanction for prosecution of a person, who
was a public servant at the time of
commission of the offence, is must. The
learned
Senior
Counsel
has
further
submitted that the cognizance was taken on
23.11.2018 and the amendment in Section
19 PC Act received President's assent on
26.07.2018 and published in the official
gazette on the same day, and it came into
force with effect from 26.07.2018 itself.
Since the order of cognizance has been
passed after the amendment in Section 19
PC Act came into effect with effect from
26.7.2018, the same is bad in law, and the
entire
subsequent
proceedings
after
cognizance are nullity.

13. On the other hand, Mr. Anurag
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent - CBI has submitted that the
amendment
in
Section
19
PC Act
(Amending Act No. 16 of 2018) has no
application in respect of the applicant
inasmuch as the alleged offence was
committed by the applicant and co-accused
during the years 2008 to 2010. The
Amending Act will have prospective effect
and would be applicable in respect of the
offences which were/are committed after
the amendment came into force in Section
19 PC Act. It will have no effect on a
government servant who got retired before
the Amendment came into force. In the
present
case,
the
applicant
allegedly
committed the offence before 26.07.2018.
The
learned
counsel
has,
therefore,
submitted that the application has no merit
and substance and the same is liable to
rejected.

14.

The
CBI
undertook
the
investigation
in
compliance
of
the
Mandamus issued by this Court vide
judgment and order dated 31.01.2014
passed in Public Interest Litigation Petition
No.12802 (MB) of 2011. The following
two questions need to be considered in the
present case:-

(I) whether when the CBI or any other
agency undertakes investigation of an
offence in compliance of the judgment and
order passed by the Constitutional Court
(High Court/Supreme Court) and the role
of public servant comes as an accused for
committing offence under the PC Act,
sanction under Section 19 PC Act from the
competent authority for prosecuting such
public servant would be sine-qua-none
before taking cognizance by the Court?

(II) Whether the Amending provisions
of Section 19 PC Act would have
prospective effect that is to say offence
allegedly committed after 26.07.2018 or the
Amending Act would be applicable in
respect of the offence which was allegedly
committed before 26.07.2018?

15. Section 19 PC Act, after
Amending Act No. 16 of 2018 would read
as under:-

"19. Previous sanction necessary for
prosecution.--(1) No court shall take
cognizance of an offence punishable under
[Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15] alleged to have
been committed by a public servant, except
with the previous sanction [save as
otherwise provided in the Lokpal and
Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014)],--

(a) in the case of a person [who is
employed, or as the case may be, was at the
time of commission of the alleged offence
employed] in connection with the affairs of
the Union and is not removable from his
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
office save by or with the sanction of the
Central Government, of that Government;

(b) in the case of a person [who is
employed, or as the case may be, was at the
time of commission of the alleged offence
employed] in connection with the affairs of
a State and is not removable from his office
save by or with the sanction of the State
Government, of that Government;

(c) in the case of any other person, of
the authority competent to remove him from
his office.

[Provided that no request can be
made, by a person other than a police
officer or an officer of an investigation
agency or other law enforcement authority,
to
the
appropriate
Government
or
competent authority, as the case may be,
for
the
previous
sanction
of
such
Government
or
authority
for
taking
cognizance by the court of any of the
offences specified in this sub-section,
unless--

(i) such person has filed a complaint
in a competent court about the alleged
offences for which the public servant is
sought to be prosecuted; and

(ii) the court has not dismissed the
complaint under Section 203 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and
directed the complainant to obtain the
sanction for prosecution against the public
servant for further proceeding:

Provided further that in the case of
request from the person other than a police
officer or an officer of an investigation
agency or other law enforcement authority,
the appropriate Government or competent
authority shall not accord sanction to
prosecute
a
public
servant
without
providing an opportunity of being heard to
the concerned public servant:

Provided also that the appropriate
Government or any competent authority
shall, after the receipt of the proposal
requiring sanction for prosecution of a
public servant under this sub-section,
endeavour to convey the decision on such
proposal within a period of three months
from the date of its receipt:

Provided also that in case where, for
the purpose of grant of sanction for
prosecution, legal consultation is required,
such period may, for the reasons to be
recorded in writing, be extended by a
further period of one month:

Provided
also
that
the
Central
Government may, for the purpose of
sanction for prosecution of a public
servant, prescribe such guidelines as it
considers necessary.

Explanation.--For the purposes of
sub-section (1), the expression "public
servant" includes such person--

(a) who has ceased to hold the office
during which the offence is alleged to have
been committed; or

(b) who has ceased to hold the office
during which the offence is alleged to have
been committed and is holding an office
other than the office during which the
offence is alleged to have been committed.]

(2) Where for any reason whatsoever
any doubt arises as to whether the previous
sanction as required under sub-section (1)
should be given by the Central Government
or the State Government or any other
authority, such sanction shall be given by
that Government or authority which would
have been competent to remove the public
servant from his office at the time when the
offence
was
alleged
to
have
been
committed.

(3)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),--

(a) no finding, sentence or order
passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed
or
altered
by
a
Court
in
appeal,
confirmation or revision on the ground of
1 All. Dr. Syed Fareed Haider Rizvi @ Dr. S.F.H. Rizvi Vs. C.B.I.
719
the absence of, or any error, omission or
irregularity in, the sanction required under
sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of
that court, a failure of justice has in fact
been occasioned thereby;

(b) no court shall stay the proceedings
under this Act on the ground of any error,
omission or irregularity in the sanction
granted by the authority, unless it is
satisfied that such error, omission or
irregularity has resulted in a failure of
justice;

(c) no court shall stay the proceedings
under this Act on any other ground and no
court shall exercise the powers of revision
in relation to any interlocutory order
passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other
proceedings.

(4) In determining under sub-section
(3) whether the absence of, or any error,
omission or irregularity in, such sanction
has occasioned or resulted in a failure of
justice the court shall have regard to the
fact whether the objection could and should
have been raised at any earlier stage in the
proceedings.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this
section,--

(a) error includes competency of the
authority to grant sanction;

(b) a sanction required for prosecution
includes reference to any requirement that
the prosecution shall be at the instance of a
specified authority or with the sanction of a
specified person or any requirement of a
similar nature."

16. It is well settled that the CBI
cannot take any investigation in respect of
an offence without the consent of the State
Government concerned, as mandated under
Section 6 of The Delhi Special Police
Establishment
Act,
1946
(hereinafter
referred to as "DSPE Act"). The powers of
the Constitutional Courts are not fettered
by statutory restrictions of the DSPE Act.
Under the constitutional scheme and
division of powers between the Centre and
the States, the State Police is under
Schedule-VII, List-2 of the Constitution.
Normally, investigation of a crime is to be
undertaken by the police of the concerned
State where the case is registered. In some
cases, where the nature of crime is such and
to maintain confidence of the people in fair
and
impartial
investigation,
the
investigation may be entrusted to the CBI,
either with the consent of the State
Government concerned or on orders of the
Constitutional Court. The mandate of
Section 6 DSPE Act is done away with
when the Court entrusts investigation to the
CBI. If after investigation the role of a
public servant is found as an accused in
commission of the offence.

17. In recent past, several States have
withdrawn general consent under Section 6
DSPE Act for investigation of an offence
by the CBI, but the Constitutional Courts
still have entrusted the investigation for
offence(s) in such States where the
impartial and fair investigation had been
doubted in the hands of the State Police. If
the sanction for prosecution of a public
servant is mandated where the investigation
of the crime has been handed over to the
CBI on the order of the Constitutional
Court, it may result in a futile exercise as
such a State Government which has
withdrawn the consent under Section 6 of
DSPE Act may not accord sanction for
prosecution of a public servant.

18. In view of the aforesaid, I am of
the considered view that where the
investigation of an offence has been
entrusted to the CBI pursuant to the order
passed by the Constitutional Court and role
of a public servant comes as an accused for
720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
committing such an offence, no prior
sanction under Section 19 PC Act would be
required for prosecuting such a public
servant.

19. The relevant date for applicability
of law in respect of a crime would be the
date
of
commission
of
the
crime.
Subsequent amendment in the statute
would not govern the investigation and
prosecution of an accused for an offence
which
was
committed
before
the
Amendment in the statute came into force.

20. The Supreme Curt in the Case
reported in (2019) 19 SCC 87 (State of
Telangana Vs. Managipet alias Mangipet
Sarveshwar
Reddy)
has
held
that
Amending Act No. 16 of 2018 would not
be applicable for an offence which was
committed prior to amendment being
carried out. Whether any offence has been
committed or not has to be examined in the
light of the provisions of the statute as
existed prior to the Amendment carried out
on 26.07.2018 in the PC Act. It would be
apt to quote paragraphs-35, 36 and 37 of
the said judgment:-

"35. We also do not find any merit in
the argument that there has been no
sanction before the filing of the report. The
sanction
can
be
produced
by
the
prosecution during the course of trial, so
the same may not be necessary after
retirement of the accused officer. This
Court in K. Kalimuthu v. State [K.
Kalimuthu v. State, (2005) 4 SCC 512 :
2005 SCC (Cri) 1291] held as under :
(SCC p. 521, para 15)

"15. The question relating to the need
of sanction under Section 197 of the Code
is not necessarily to be considered as soon
as the complaint is lodged and on the
allegations contained therein. This question
may arise at any stage of the proceeding.
The question whether sanction is necessary
or not may have to be determined from
stage to stage."

36. The High Court has rightly held
that no ground is made out for quashing of
the proceedings for the reason that the
investigating agency intentionally waited
till the retirement of the accused officer.
The question as to whether a sanction is
necessary to prosecute the accused officer,
a retired public servant, is a question which
can be examined during the course of the
trial as held by this Court in K. Kalimuthu
[K. Kalimuthu v. State, (2005) 4 SCC 512 :
2005 SCC (Cri) 1291] . In fact, in a recent
judgment in Vinod Kumar Garg v. State
(NCT of Delhi) [Vinod Kumar Garg v. State
(NCT of Delhi), (2020) 2 SCC 88 : (2020) 1
SCC (Cri) 545 : (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 146] ,
this Court has held that if an investigation
was not conducted by a police officer of the
requisite rank and status required under
Section 17 of the Act, such lapse would be
an irregularity, however unless such
irregularity results in causing prejudice,
conviction will not be vitiated or be bad in
law. Therefore, the lack of sanction was
rightly found not to be a ground for
quashing of the proceedings.

37. Mr Guru Krishna Kumar further
refers to a Single Bench judgment of the
Madras High Court in M. Soundararajan v.
State [M. Soundararajan v. State, 2018
SCC OnLine Mad 13515] to contend that
amended provisions of the Act as amended
by Act 16 of 2018 would be applicable as
the amending Act came into force before
filing of the charge-sheet. We do not find
any merit in the said argument. In the
aforesaid case, the learned trial court
applied amended provisions in the Act
which came into force on 26-7-2018 and
acquitted both the accused from charge
under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section
1 All. Bal Kumar Patel @ Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
721
13(2) of the Act. The High Court found that
the order of the trial court to apply the
amended provisions of the Act was not
justified and remanded the matter back
observing that the offences were committed
prior to the amendments being carried out.
In the present case, the FIR was registered
on 9-11-2011 much before the Act was
amended in the year 2018. Whether any
offence has been committed or not has to
be examined in the light of the provisions of
the statute as it existed prior to the
amendment carried out on 26-7-2018."

21. This Court vide judgment and
order dated 22.10.2018 reported in 2018
SCC OnLine All 5546 (Kaushlesh Kumar
Sinha Vs. CBI) has also rejected the
contention that after the Amending Act
No.16 of 2018 came into force with effect
from 26.07.2018, the sanction in respect of
a public servant, who got retired, before
cognizance could be taken by the learned
trial Court is a must.

22. In view thereof, I do not find the
argument of Mr. Nandit Kumar Srivastava,
learned Senior Counsel, representing the
applicant impressive and, therefore, the
application is hereby rejected. However, the
applicant is granted four days time from
today to surrender and apply for regular bail
and if does so, his application for regular bail
shall
be
considered
and
decided
expeditiously, in accordance with law.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 721
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 10778 of 2022
with
Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438
No. 8945 of 2020

Bal Kumar Patel @ Raj Kumar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, Sri Durgesh
Kumar Singh, Sri Bindeshwari Prasad Tiwari, Sri
Sankalp Narain, Sri Hemant Kumar Srivastava,
Sri Dhananjay Shukla

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh(A.G.A.), Sri Jitendra
Prasad Mishra

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 482 - Scope -
Quashing of charge-sheet and proceeding
- Inherent power, how can be exercised -
Questions of facts, how far can be
adjudicated - Held, exercise of inherent
power of the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is
an exceptional one. Great care should be
taken by the High Court before embarking
to scrutinize the complaint/FIR/chargesheet in deciding whether the rarest of the
rare case is made out to scuttle the
prosecution in its inception - At the stage
of quashing, only the material of the
prosecution has to be seen and the court
cannot delve into the correctness of the
allegations or the defence of the accused
and then proceed to examine the matter
on its merit by weighing the evidence so
produced - The disputed questions of
facts of the case cannot be adjudged and
adjudicated at this stage while exercising
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and only
the prima facie prosecution case has to be
looked into as it is. Evidence needs to be
led to substantiate the defence of the
accused. (Para 20 and 24)
B. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 438 - Anticipatory
Bail - Scope - Transaction of money
through
the
Bank
-
Allegation
of
committing offence u/s 419, 420 and 406
I.P.C. - Earlier the applicant was a public
representative and he was involved in