# Jaswant v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5721 of 2020
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-02-20
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5721 of 2020
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jaswant-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46192
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law-Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 319 - Power to proceed
against other persons appearing to be
guilty of offence - Degree of Satisfaction -
degree of satisfaction before summoning
u/s 319 CrPC must be more than prima
facie, which is warranted at the time of
framing of charges - power u/s 319 CrPC
can be exercised where strong & cogent
evidence are found against a person

In FIR specific allegation of firing against the
applicant - which hit deceased & thereby he
died - statement of informant PW 1 recorded
during trial consistent - PW-2 also gave same
statement against the applicant - which is much
more than prima facie evidence - cross
examination of PW-1, PW-2 already completed -
Held - no illegality in summoning applicant u/s
319 CrPC (Para 31)

Application dismissed (E-5)

List of cases cited :

1.Labhuji Amratji Thakor & ors. Vs. St. of Guj &
ors., AIR 2019 SC 734

2.Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Pun & ors., 2014 (3)
SCC 92

3.Shiv Prakash Mishra Vs St. of U.P. & anr. 2019
(7) SCC 806

4.Vikas Vs St. of Raj (2014)3 SCC 321
5.Brijendra Singh & Ors Vs St. of Raj., 2017(7)
SCC 706

## Text

1654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impugned
summoning
order
dated
20.02.2019 is hereby quashed. Learned
court below is directed to pass a fresh order
on the complaint after applying his judicial
mind.

10. The application stands allowed.

11. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the court concerned for compliance.

12. Register General of this Court is
directed to send a copy of this order to the
concerned court taking into consideration
the fact that all the Presiding Officer shall
restrain themselves from using such printed
proforma in judicial work. The blank
printed proformas available in the court
below will be seized.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1654
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5721 of 2020

Jaswant ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi, Sri Gopal Krishna,
Sri Rakesh Nath Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Ajay Sengar

Criminal Law-Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 319 - Power to proceed
against other persons appearing to be
guilty of offence - Degree of Satisfaction -
degree of satisfaction before summoning
u/s 319 CrPC must be more than prima
facie, which is warranted at the time of
framing of charges - power u/s 319 CrPC
can be exercised where strong & cogent
evidence are found against a person

In FIR specific allegation of firing against the
applicant - which hit deceased & thereby he
died - statement of informant PW 1 recorded
during trial consistent - PW-2 also gave same
statement against the applicant - which is much
more than prima facie evidence - cross
examination of PW-1, PW-2 already completed -
Held - no illegality in summoning applicant u/s
319 CrPC (Para 31)

Application dismissed (E-5)

List of cases cited :

1.Labhuji Amratji Thakor & ors. Vs. St. of Guj &
ors., AIR 2019 SC 734

2.Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Pun & ors., 2014 (3)
SCC 92

3.Shiv Prakash Mishra Vs St. of U.P. & anr. 2019
(7) SCC 806

4.Vikas Vs St. of Raj (2014)3 SCC 321
5.Brijendra Singh & Ors Vs St. of Raj., 2017(7)
SCC 706

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

1. Mr. Ajay Sengar, learned Advocate
has filed his appearance slip today on
behalf of opposite party No. 2/informant,
which is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Ashok Nath Tripathi,
Mr. Gopal Krishna, Mr. Rakesh Nath
Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the
applicant,
Mr.
Ajay
Sengar,
learned
counsel
for
the
opposite
party
No.
2/informant and Mr. Shiv Sewak Ram
Dwivedi, learned Additional Government
Advocate assisted by Mr. Raj Mani Yadav,
learned brief holder representing the State
3-5 All. Jaswant Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1655
and perused the materials available on
record.

3. By means of this application under
section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, herein after referred as "Cr.P.C"
the applicant has invoked the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of
the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in
Sessions Trial No. 30 of 2019 (Lakhan and
others vs. State of U.P. and another) arising
out of Case Crime No. 326 of 2018, police
station Kotwali, district Jalaun, whereby
the application No. 16-Kha dated 3.7.2019
moved by the informant, Premnarayan
under section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed and
applicant, Jaswant was summoned to face
the trial for the offence punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149, 504
and 506 IPC as well as entire proceedings
of aforesaid case.

4. In short compass, the facts of the
case are that a written report was lodged by
the
informant of
the
case,
namely,
Premnarayan on 09.11.2018 at the police
station Kotwali Koanch, district Jalaun
against accused-persons, Lakhan, Man
Singh, Sahab Singh, Jaswant (present
applicant) and Yatendra to the effect that
on 08.11.2018 at 5.00 p.m., while he was
sitting along with his brother, Sundar
(deceased),
and
witnesses,
Mahendra,
Gajendra, Karan Singh and Sitaram at the
door platform (Chabootra) of Gajendra
situated in front of his house, the accused,
Man Singh came there and abused the
aforesaid persons that they were laughing
at him. Thereafter, accused, Man Singh left
the place giving threat to the persons sitting
there, and after some time, he along with
accused, Lakhan, Sahab Singh, Jaswant
(applicant) and Yatendra came there and
with an intention to kill, accused Lakhan
and Man Singh caught hold of deceased,
Sundar and accused Jaswant (applicant)
fired at him by his country made pistol
(Katta), as a result thereof, he received
pellet
injuries
on
his
forehead
and
succumbed to the injury. The accused
Sahab Singh also fired at the deceased by
his weapon, but his shot did not hit the
deceased.
The
accused
persons
also
cordoned the aforesaid persons with a
common intention and started beating them
with lathi and danda, due to which,
witnesses Gajendra, Mahendra, Karan and
Sitaram also received grievous injuries. It is
further mentioned in the report that there
was old enmity between the parties.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid
written report, a case was registered at Case
Crime No. 326 of 2018, under Sections
147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 and 302 IPC,
police station Kotwali, district Jalaun,

6. On 09.11.2018 post-mortem of
deceased, Sundar was conducted and
following injuries were found on his
person:-

1. Wound of entry 3 cm X 1.5 cm
on right parietal region oval shaped 2 cm
medial from right ear & 5 cm lateral to Rt.
Orbit. Margins are lacerated. Edges are
inverted and irregular. No blackening,
scorching, tattooing seen.

2. No other external visible injury
seen.

3. No exit wound present.

7. During Investigation, statements
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of informant,
Premnarayan and Mahendra Singh have
been recorded, in which they have
reiterated the prosecution version as
mentioned in the first information report in
which specific allegations have been
1656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
levelled against the applicant, Jaswant that
while the deceased was caught hold of by
Man Singh and Lakhan Singh, Jaswant
fired at the deceased, hitting on his
forehead. Due to the injury received by the
deceased he died. However, in their
statements recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. other witnesses, namely, Gajendra
Singh, Karan Singh, Anil Kumar Kori,
Deep Narayan Pal, Ramesh Singh Pal and
Shyam Kishore Rathore have stated that
co-accused, Jahar Singh fired at deceased,
Sundar, causing his death.

8.

After
the
culmination
of
investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted charge sheet dated 18.1.2019
against Lakhan Singh, Man Singh, Sahab
Singh, Yatendra and Jahar Singh under
Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149, 504
and 506 IPC and exonerated the present
applicant, Jaswant from all the charges.

9. It is also pointed out that Ramesh
Kumar has also lodged first information report
dated 09.11.2018 at 10.33 PM with regard to
alleged incident dated 08.11.2018 at 5.00 PM
against Sundar, Mahendra Singh, Premnarayan,
Gajendra, Parichat, Sitaram and Purshuram,
which was registered as Case Crime No. 334 of
2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504,
506 and 308 IPC, police station Kotwali Konch,
district Jalaun with the allegation of causing
injuries to Surajpal, Jitendra, Man Singh and
Sahab Singh, in which also charge sheet dated
22.1.2019
has
been
submitted
by
the
Investigating Officer against Mahendra Singh,
Premarayan, Gajendra Singh and Sitaram for
the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
504, 506 and 325 IPC as no offence against
Mahendra Singh, Premarayan, Gajendra Singh
and Sitaram was made out under Section 308
IPC.

10. As the case against the applicant at
Case Crime No. 326 of 2018, police station
Kotwali, district Jalaun was exclusively triable
by the court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate
committed the case to the court of sessions,
where case was registered as Sessions Trial No.
30 of 2019.

11. In the trial, evidence of informant,
Premnarayan, who was examined as PW-1 and
injured Mahendra Singh, who was examined as
PW-2 has been recorded. Both the aforesaid
prosecution witnesses in their evidence have
specifically stated that the deceased was caught
hold by accused, Man Singh and Lakhan Singh,
whereas Jaswant fired at the deceased, which
hit on forehead of the deceased The relevant
part of statements of PW-1 and PW-2, which is
against the present applicant is reproduced
herein below:-

Statement
of
PW-1
Premnarayan

xxxx blds ckn yk[ku vkSj eku flag
us lqUnj dks idM+ fy;kA tloUr us vius reaps
ls Qk;j dj fn;kA

mlds ckn lkgc flag us Hkh xksyh
pyk;hA ysfdu tloUr dh xksyh HkkbZ lqUnj dks
yxh vkSj ykBh M.Mksa ls lHkh yksx ekjus yxsA
ge yksx yc cpkus ds fy, igqaps rks ge yksxksa ds
lkFk Hkh ekjihV dh ftlesa egsUnz] lhrkjke]
xtsUnz] dju flag bu lHkh dks xEHkhj pksVsa vk;haA

Statement of PW-2, Mahendra
Singh

xxxx

rHkh eku flag o yk[ku flag us esjs
firk lqUnj flag dks idM+ fy;kA tloUr flag us
vius reaps ls esjs firk lqUnj flag dks xksyh ekj
nh tks esjs firk lqUnj flag ds flj ij yxhA rHkh
lkgc flag us Hkh xksyh pyk;hA rc ge yksx
cpkus vk;sA rc ge yksxksa dh Hkh ekjihV dh
dju flag] lhrkjke] xtsUnz flag o esjh ekjihV
dh A eq>s Hkh pksVas vk;h FkhaA

12. On the basis of aforesaid
evidence, application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. dated 37.2019 was moved by the
3-5 All. Jaswant Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1657
informant/opposite party No. 2, which has
been allowed by the trial court. The said
impugned order dated 26.11.2019 is under
challenge in the present case.

13. Assailing the impugned order
dated 26.11.2019, the main substratum of
argument of learned counsel for the
applicant is that merely on the basis of
statements of PW-1 and PW-2, applicant
cannot be summoned as an additional
accused
to
face
trial
unless
entire
prosecution witnesses are examined.

14. It is next submitted by learned
counsel for the applicant that merely by
taking the name of applicant, he cannot be
summoned. It is also submitted by learned
counsel for the applicant that during
investigation some of the witnesses have
stated that fire was made by Jahar Singh,
therefore, charge sheet was not submitted
against the applicant, Jaswant. PW-1 and
PW-2 deliberately taken his name assigning
the role of firing on deceased with ulterior
motive, which cannot said to be more than
prima facie, therefore, impugned order
dated 26.11.2019 is not sustainable in the
eye of law and liable to be quashed by this
Court.

15. Learned counsel for the applicant
has placed reliance upon the judments of
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of
Labhuji Amratji Thakor and others vs.
State of Gujarat and others; AIR 2019 SC
734 and Hardeep Singh vs. State of
Punjab and others; 2014 (3) SCC 92 or
Shiv Prakash Mishra vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another; 2019 (7) SCC 806 to
contend that the power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. can be exercised only where strong
and cogent evidence are found against a
person and not in a casual and cavalier
manner. The decree of satisfaction before
summoning the offence under Section 319
Cr.P.C. must be more than prima facie,
which is warranted at the time of framing
of charges against the accused.

16. Per contra, learned Additional
Government Advocate supported the order
of the court below and vehemently opposed
the aforesaid submissions of learned
counsel for the applicant by contending that
in the first information report there is
specific allegation of firing against the
applicant, which hit the deceased and
thereby
he
died.
The
statement
of
informant, recorded during trial as PW-1 is
consistent. PW-2 has also given same
statement against the applicant, which is
much more than prima facie evidence
against the applicant. It is also submitted by
learned Additional Government Advocate
that the cross-examination of PW-1 and
PW-2 has already been completed.

17. In the present case there was
specific allegations against the applicant
and the enmity between the accused and the
complainant was existing. It is a broad day
light murder, which took place at 5.00 p.m.
in front of the house of the informant. It is
not expected from the injured to depose
wrong facts and frame a false case against
the applicant leaving the real culprits to go
scot free.

18. Before adverting to the claim of
the parties, it would be useful to quote
Section 319 Cr.P.C.

"319. Power to proceed against
other persons appearing to be guilty of
offence.

(1) Where, in the course of any
inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it
appears from the evidence that any person
not being the accused has committed any
1658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
offence for which such person could be
tried together with the accused, the Court
may proceed against such person for the
offence
which
he
appears
to
have
committed.

(2) Where such person is not
attending the Court, he may be arrested or
summoned, as the circumstances of the
case
may
require,
for
the
purpose
aforesaid.

(3) Any person attending the
Court, although not under arrest or upon a
summons, may be detained by such Court
for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial
of, the offence which he appears to have
committed.

(4) Where the Court proceeds
against any person under sub- section (1),
then-

(a) the proceedings in respect of
such person shall be commenced a fresh,
and the witnesses re- heard;

(b) subject to the provisions of
clause (a), the case may proceed as if such
person had been an accused person when
the Court took cognizance of the offence
upon which the inquiry or trial was
commenced."

19. From the perusal of Section 319
Cr.P.C., it is clear that it is the duty of the
Court to see that no accused is left
unpunished.
Where
the
investigating
agency for any reason does not array the
real culprit as accused, the Court is
empowered to call the said accused to face
the trial.

20. The moot question involved in the
present case is as to at which stage the
power should be exercised in respect of a
person named in the FIR, but not charge
sheeted and the degree of satisfaction that
is required for invoking the powers under
Section 319 Cr.P.C.

21. These two questions, where
specifically dealt with by the Constitution
Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Hardeep Singh and others (Supra), where
the Court held as under:

"Thus, in view of the above, we
hold that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
can be exercised at the stage of completion
of examination in chief and court does not
need to wait till the said evidence is tested
on
cross-examination
for
it
is
the
satisfaction of the court which can be
gathered from the reasons recorded by the
court, in respect of complicity of some
other person(s), not facing the trial in the
offence"

xxxxxx

"At the time of taking cognizance,
the court has to see whether a prima facie
case is made out to proceed against the
accused. Under Section 319 Cr.P.C.,
though the test of prima facie case is the
same, the degree of satisfaction that is
required is much stricter."

22. The Court further held as under:

"Power
under
Section
319
Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra-
ordinary power. It is to be exercised
sparingly and only in those cases where the
circumstances of the case so warrant. It is
not to be exercised because the Magistrate
or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that
some other person may also be guilty of
committing that offence. Only where strong
and cogent evidence occurs against a
person from the evidence led before the
court that such power should be exercised
and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

Thus, we hold that though only a
prima facie case is to be established from
the evidence led before the court not
3-5 All. Jaswant Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1659
necessarily tested on the anvil of CrossExamination, it requires much stronger
evidence than mere probability of his
complicity. The test that has to be applied
is one which is more than prima facie case
as exercised at the time of framing of
charge, but short of satisfaction to an
extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted,
would lead to conviction. In the absence of
such satisfaction, the court should refrain
from exercising power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose
of providing if ''it appears from the
evidence that any person not being the
accused has committed any offence' is clear
from the words "for which such person
could be tried together with the accused."
The words used are not ''for which such
person could be convicted'. There is,
therefore, no scope for the Court acting
under Section 319 Cr.P.C.. to form any
opinion as to the guilt of the accused."

23. The Division Bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Vikas Vs. State of
Rajasthan (2014)3 SCC 321 has held that
on the objective satisfaction of the court a
person may be 'arrested' or 'summoned', as
the circumstances of the case may require,
if it appears from the evidence that any
such person not being the accused has
committed an offence for which such
person could be tried together with the
already arraigned accused persons.

24. While dealing with the duty and
power of the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C.,
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brijendra Singh
and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2017(7)
SCC 706 has held as under:

"It is the duty of the court to do
justice by punishing the real culprit. Where the
investigating agency for any reason does not
array one of the real culprits as an accused, the
court is not powerless in calling the said
accused to face trial. The question remains
under what circumstances and at what stage
should the court exercise its power as
contemplated in Section 319 Cr.P.C."

xx xx xx

"The court is the sole repository of
justice and a duty is cast upon it to uphold the
rule of law and, therefore, it will be
inappropriate to deny the existence of such
powers with the courts in our criminal justice
system where it is not uncommon that the real
accused, at times, get away by manipulating the
investigating and/or the prosecuting agency.
The desire to avoid trial is so strong that an
accused makes efforts at times to get himself
absolved even at the stage of investigation or
inquiry even though he may be connected with
the commission of the offence." It also goes
without saying that Section 319 Cr.P.C., which
is an enabling provision empowering the Court
to take appropriate steps for proceeding against
any person, not being an accused, can be
exercised at any time after the charge-sheet is
filed and before the pronouncement of the
judgment, except during the stage of Section
207/208 Cr.P.C., the committal etc., which is
only a pre-trial stage intended to put the
process into motion."

25. The aforesaid principles have
further followed by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the cases of Periyasami and
others Vs. S. Nallasamy; 2019 (4) SCC
342, Sugreev Kumar vs. State of Punjab
and others; AIR 2019 SC 2903, Shiv
Prakash Mishra vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh; 2019 (7) SCC 806 and Mani
Pushpak Joshi vs. State of Uttrakhand
and another; AIR 2019 SC 5263.

26. In the instant case the first
information report has been lodged on
09.11.2018 with the allegations that on
08.11.2018 at about 5.00 P.M., while the
1660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
informant was sitting along with his brother
Sundar
(deceased)
and
witnesses
Mahendra, Gajendra, Karan Singh and
Sitaram at the platform of Gajendra in front
of his house, after some altercation,
accused Lakhan, and Man Singh caught
hold of his brother (deceased) whereas
accused Jaswant (the present applicant)
fired at him by the country made pistol, due
to which he died. The version of the FIR
was categorically reiterated by the first
informant in his statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. Witnesses Mahendra
Singh and Sita Ram have also stated that it
was Jaswant (the applicant), who had fired
at the deceased. However, some of the
witnesses namely Gajendra, Karan, Anil
Kumar Kori, Deep Narayan Pal, Ramesh
Singh Pal and Shyam Kishore Rathore in
their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C
have stated that it was co-accused Jahar
Singh, who fired at the deceased. The
investigating officer on the basis of the
statements of Gajendra, Karan, Anil Kumar
Kori, Deep Narayan Pal, Ramesh Singh Pal
and Shyam Kishore Rathore has exonerated
Jaswant and in his place name of Jahar
Singh has been introduced as accued,
whereas the name of Jahar Singh did not
find place in the FIR lodged by the first
informant.

27. In the trial, the first informant
Premnarayan was examined as PW-1 and
injured Mahendra Pal has been examined as
PW-2. Both the witnesses in their examinationin-chief have clearly deposed that accused
Lakhan and Man Singh have caught hold of the
deceased-Sundar, whereas accused-Jaswant
(the present applicant) fired from his country
made pistol, which hit the deceased. At this
stage the evidence of PW-1, the first informant
of the case, who was also an eyewitness of the
case and PW-2, Mahendra Pal, who is an
injured witness cannot be discarded.

28. In view of above, it can safely be hold
that the learned Sessions Judge while passing
the impugned order dated 26.11.2019 was fully
satisfied that there are strong and cogent
evidence against the applicant and has not
passed the order in a casual manner.

29. The order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge was in consonance with the law
laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Hardeep Singh; Labhuji Amratji Thakor and
others; Shiv Prakash Mishra; Vikas; and
Brijendra Singh and others (Supra) and it
cannot be said that the order of the learned
Sessions Judge is in the teeth of the order of
Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated referred to
above.

30. Each case must be decided on its own
facts and merit. Even one additional or different
fact may make big difference between the
conclusion in two cases, because even a single
significant detail may alter entire aspect.

31.

Considering
the
facts,
materials
on
record
as
well
as
statements of PW-1 and PW-2, as
mentioned above, this Court is also of
the view that the evidence which has
come on record against the applicant
are much more than prima facie and are
sufficient
to
proceed
against
the
applicant in exercise of power under
Section 319 Cr.P.C.

32. In view of what has been
indicated herein above, I do not find
any illegality or irregularity in the order
dated 26.11.2019 passed by the learned
Sessions
Judge,
Jalaun
at
Orai
summoning the applicant under Section
319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial under
Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149,
504 and 506 IPC along with other
accused.
3-5 All. Avinash Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1661

33. The application is bereft of merit.
It is accordingly rejected.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1661
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 6939 of 2006

Avinash Mishra ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vinay Saran, Sri Nandit K. Srivastava,
Sri Prashant Shukla, Sri Raghav Dev Garg,
Sri Vinay Saran, Sri Mohan Singh, Sri
Praveen Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Anurag Khanna, Sri Gyan Prakas,
Sri Nazrul Islam Jafri, Sri Sanjay Kumar
Yadav

A. Criminal Law-Criminal Procedure Code
(2 of 1974) , Section 197 - Sanction for
prosecution
-
Government
power
to
review its
earlier
order
granting
or
refusing sanction to prosecute - when
permissible
-
only
if
matter
is
reconsidered in the light of fresh materials
- however it is not permissible for the
sanctioning
authority
to
review
or
reconsider
the
matter
on
the
same
materials again

In the earlier order refusing sanction - order of
Supreme Court for investigation by C.B.I., was
not taken into consideration - subsequently -
that additional material was placed before
Government - at the subsequent stage sanction
accorded on the basis of that additional material
- Held - No violation of law made by the
Government by according the said sanction
(Para 23)

B. Criminal Law- Criminal Procedure Code
(2 of 1974) , Section 197 - Sanction for
prosecution - Fake Encounter by police -
to eliminate offender cannot be held to fall
in official duty - Offence alleged have no
nexus or/and relation with discharge of
official duties as a Govt. Officer - Sanction
not necessary (Para 24)

Application dismissed (E-5)

List of cases cited :
1.St. of Punjab & anr. Vs Md Iqbal Bhatti 2009
(67) ACC 350

2.Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain Vs Pandey
Ajay Bhushan & ors., 1998 CRI

3.St. of Ori & ors. Vs Ganesh Chandra Jew 2004
AIR SCW 1296

4.St. of Maha Vs Dr. Budhikota Subbard (1993)
3 SCC 339

5.St. through C.B.I. Vs B.L. Verma & anr.,
(1997) 10 SCC 772

6.St. thru C.B.I. Vs B.L. Verma & anr., (1997) 10
SCC 772

7.Amrik Singh Vs St .of Pepsu AIR 1955 SC 309

8.Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs St. of Guj
(1997) 7 SCC 622

9.R.S. Nayak Vs A.R. Antulay 1984 SCC (Cri)
172

10.Devendra Prasad Singh Vs St. of Bihar & anr.
AIR 2019 SC 1671

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

1. Heard Sri Nandit K. Srivastava,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjay
Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the
C.B.I.