# Hare Krishna Singh v. State Of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 769 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-05-19 - **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hare-krishna-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43934 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Prior Sanction Under Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is a Pre-condition for Taking Cognizance - Complete Bar on Court's Power in Absence of Valid Sanction - Proceedings Without Valid Sanction are Wholly Without Jurisdiction and Liable to Be Quashed - Sub-Inspector (applicant) summoned for trial for offences under Sections 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 in connection with alleged acceptance of bribe without prior sanction having been obtained from the competent authority; Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act creates a complete bar on the power of any court to take cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 against a public servant except with ## Text 5 All. Hare Krishna Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 769 17. The writ petition is dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.5.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. Writ C No.- 23107 Of 2016 Hare Krishna Singh ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Jalaj Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. The petitioner was issued a domicile/residential certificate dated 16.2.2012 certifying that he is resident of village Taiyabpur Kamalpur, district Kasganj. This certificate has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 26.6.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The appeal of the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 29.2.2016. In view of this the authorities below have rightly held that the petitioner is a permanent resident of city Kasganj and the domicile/residential certificate dated 16.2.2012 was incorrectly issued to him. In fact it was manipulated by the petitioner in order to save his service as Shiksha Mitra. The above finding is a finding of fact and it is not open to be disturbed in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was issued a domicile/residential certificate dated 16.2.2012 certifying that he is resident of village Taiyabpur Kamalpur, district Kasganj. This certificate has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 26.6.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The 770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES appeal of the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 29.2.2016. 3. The above two orders have been impugned by the petitioner by filing this writ petition. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is originally resident of village Taiyabpur Kamalpur, district Kasganj and, therefore, the authorities below have committed an error in holding that as he is living in Mohalla Mohan Chitragupt Colony/Lavkush Nagar Kasganj his domicile/residential certificate is incorrect. 5. Domicile or residence more or less carry the same meaning, inasmuch as both refer to the permanent home of the person concerned. Domicile is at the international level and the residence is somewhat at a local level. A person is the domicile in the country in which he is considered to have his permanent home. No one can be without a domicile and no one can have two domiciles. The same principle applies at a lower level to the place of residence of a person. Domiciles are broadly domicile of origin and domicile of choice. Domicile of origin prevails until a person acquires domicile of another place. Domicile means a place of permanent home, a place which a person fixes as his habitation for himself and his family with the intention to live there permanently. The place where a person has his home in its ordinary acceptation or a place where he lives is regarded as his place of domicile. 6. A reading of the impugned orders reveals that the domicile of origin of the petitioner is village Taiyabpur Kamalpur, district Kasganj but he had volunteerly started living in Mohalla Mohan Chitragupt Colony in Kasganj. In 2006 he had purchased his own house in Mohalla Lavkush Nagar in Kasganj where he is living since then continuously. He is having his driving license and LPG connection from his address at the city of Kasganj. 7. The aforesaid facts clearly establish beyond doubt that the petitioner has abandoned domicile of origin and has voluteerly adopted Kasganj as the domicile of his choice where he is having his permanent abode and lives with his family. 8. The voter identity card of the petitioner which entitles him to vote in the village in this background is meaningless and can not be regarded as an authentic proof of his present domicile. 9. In view of this the authorities below have rightly held that the petitioner is a permanent resident of city Kasganj and the domicile/residential certificate dated 16.2.2012 was incorrectly issued to him. In fact it was manipulated by the petitioner in order to save his service as Shiksha Mitra. 10. The above finding is a finding of fact and it is not open to be disturbed in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 11. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 5 All. Sher Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 771 ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J. THE HON'BLE VINOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-III, J. Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No.- 23196 Of 2015 Sher Singh ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Ashutosh Yadav Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Sri Nitin Srivastava, A.G.A. ................................. Prior Sanction Under Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is a Pre-condition for Taking Cognizance - Complete Bar on Court's Power in Absence of Valid Sanction - Proceedings Without Valid Sanction are Wholly Without Jurisdiction and Liable to Be Quashed - Sub-Inspector (applicant) summoned for trial for offences under Sections 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 in connection with alleged acceptance of bribe without prior sanction having been obtained from the competent authority; Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act creates a complete bar on the power of any court to take cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 against a public servant except with the previous sanction of the competent authority as specified under clauses (a) to (c); complainant neither obtained sanction nor appeared before this Court to show any sanction had been granted; Held, grant of proper sanction by competent authority is a sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence; it is desirable that the question of sanction be determined at an early stage; taking cognizance without prior sanction is completely without jurisdiction and entire proceedings stand vitiated; impugned order dated 9.9.2014 and charge framed on 25.11.2014 as well as entire proceedings of case quashed. (Paras 8-13) Application Allowed - Entire Proceedings Quashed Case Law Discussed: Dilawar Singh vs. Parvinder Singh @ Iqbal Singh and another, (2005) 12 SCC 709 State of Karnataka Through CBI vs. C. Nagarajaswamy, (2005) 8 SCC 370 (Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Srivastava-III, J.) 1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 9.9.202014 passed by Special Judge/Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 01, Aligarh in Case No. 100 of 2011, (State Vs. Sher Singh and another) arising out of case crime no. 176 of 2011, under Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Gandhi Park, District Aligarh and to quash the charge dated 25.11.2014 framed against the applicant under Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act in the aforesaid case and also to quash entire proceeding of aforesaid case.