# Rajendra Prasad Misra v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2009) 1 ILRA 196
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-01-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 24729 of 2008
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-prasad-misra-v-state-of-u-p-41343
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Chargesheet
quashing-offence under Section 466,
477, 468, 471, 409 , 120 read with
Prevention
of
Corruption
Act,
1988
Section 13(1) and Section 13(2) -no
irregularities in investigation disclosednor
the
Magistrate
committed
any
illegality in taking cognizance-cannot be
interfered
under
inherent
powerconsidering
old
age-Magistrate
to
consider the bail application on same day
the discharge application in accordance
with law.

Held: Para 6

On the ground of delay of submission of
charge sheet after the retirement of the
applicant is not a proper ground for
quashing the charge sheet. There is no
illegality in submission of the charge
sheet, therefore, the prayer for quashing
the same is refused.

## Text

196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.01.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 24729 of
2008

Rajendra Prasad Misra
...Applicant
Versus.
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rahul Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Chargesheet
quashing-offence under Section 466,
477, 468, 471, 409 , 120 read with
Prevention
of
Corruption
Act,
1988
Section 13(1) and Section 13(2) -no
irregularities in investigation disclosednor
the
Magistrate
committed
any
illegality in taking cognizance-cannot be
interfered
under
inherent
powerconsidering
old
age-Magistrate
to
consider the bail application on same day
the discharge application in accordance
with law.

Held: Para 6

On the ground of delay of submission of
charge sheet after the retirement of the
applicant is not a proper ground for
quashing the charge sheet. There is no
illegality in submission of the charge
sheet, therefore, the prayer for quashing
the same is refused.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned
counsel for the applicant and learned
AG.A for the State of U.P. and perused
the record.

2. This application has been filed
with a prayer to quash the charge sheet
dated 31.05.2007 under Sections 466,
467, 468, 471, 409, 120B I.P.C. and
Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)
C.D. of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 in Case Crime No. 115 of 1998, P.S.
Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda pending in
the court of learned Special Judge,
Corruption Act, Gorakhpur vide S.T. No.
04 of 2008.

3. The facts in brief of this case are
that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged
by Sri Rama Shanker Singh Yadav,
Inspector U.P. Vigilance Establishment,
Faizabad Sector, Faizabad against the
applicant and other co-accused persons on
06.02.1998 alleging there in that one
Awadhesh Singh son of Jagpal Singh
moved an application in respect of the
corruption of different. departments of
District Gonda, the same was forwarded
by Kunwar Ajay Pratap Singh @ Lalla
Bhaiya, M.L.A, on that application, the
Government has initiated an enquiry, in
enquiry report dated 30.9.1996 it was
found that in the construction of the
building of Vikas Bhawan, Gonda certain
irregularities were found, the work of the
construction
was
done
by
Gramin
Adhiniyantran Sewa Vibhag, Gonda. It
was found that the use of cement and saria
was shown in excessive whereas such
material was not used, for the same
purpose the forged documents were
prepared in connivance of the applicant
and other co-accused persons and some of
the records was missing at the instance of
the applicant and another co-accused
persons so that the criminal liability may
not be fixed against the applicant and
other co-accused persons. It was found
that the building of the Vikas Bhawan
was not constructed up to the mark. After
1 All] Rajendra Prasad Misra V. State of U.P.

197
preliminary enquiry the F.I.R. of this case
has been lodged. After investigation the
charge sheet date 31.05.2007 has been
filed by the 1.O. in the court of learned
Special Judge, Anti Corruption on which
the learned Special Judge concerned has
taken the cognizance on 2.2.2008.

4. It is contended by learned counsel
for the applicant that applicant was posted
as executive engineer in Gonda in Rural
Engineering Services U.P. The contract of
the construction of the building of the
Vikas Bhawan was not in the hands of the
applicant.
The
applicant
has
not
committed any forgery, cheating or
corruption. The allegations are in respect
of use of the material in the construction
of the building of the Vikas Bhawan
According to the terms and work done by
the Contractor the payment of the bills
has been made. There is no evidence to
shows that applicant had made any
conspiracy in commission of the alleged
offence. The preliminary enquiry was not
properly done and without doing the
proper enquiry the F.I.R. of this case has
been lodged only on the basis of the
presumption that sufficient material has
not been used in the construction of the
building of the Vikas Bhawan. The proper
sanction has not been accorded for the
prosecution of the applicant by authority
concerned. In the present case the proper
investigation has not been done by the
I.O. and without collecting the cogent
evidence disclosing the commission of the
offence the charge sheet has been
submitted. The charge sheet has been
submitted in view of the technical report
submitted by the Chief Engineer. The
applicant has retired in the year 1992, the
charge sheet has been submitted after 15
years of his retirement. The charge sheet
has been submitted by the I.O. is simply
misuse of the process of law whereas no
offence is made out against the applicant
and in a routine manner without perusing
the material collected by the I.O. the
learned Special Judge has taken the
cognizance and summoned the applicant
to face the trial, therefore, the charge
sheet of the present case may be quashed.

5. In reply of the above contention it
is submitted by learned AG.A that in the
present case the preliminary enquiry has
been done on the basis of the complaint
received
by
the
Government.
In
preliminary enquiry it was found that
applicant and other co-accused persons
have committed the alleged offence
thereafter the F.I.R. has been lodged. The
matter was properly investigation, during
investigation the cogent evidence has
been collected by the I.O. disclosing the
commission of the offence. Thereafter the
charge sheet dated 31.5.2007 has been
submitted in the court of learned Special
Judge Anti Corruption, Gorakhpur who
take the cognizance on 2.2.2008. During
investigation the proper sanction has also
been obtained. There is no illegality in the
sanction also, only delay in submitting the
charge sheet is not a proper ground for
quashing
the
charge
sheet.
The
application filed by the applicant is
devoid of merits and the same may be
dismissed.

6. Considering the submission made
by learned counsel for the applicant,
learned AG.A and from the perusal of
record it appears that in the present case
on the basis of the complaint made by Sri
Awadhesh Singh, the same was forwarded
by Kunwar Ajay Pratap Singh @ Lalla
Bhaiya, M.L.A. open enquiry has been
conducted by the Government, in enquiry
it was found that proper material of
198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

cement and iron rods not been used in the
construction of building of Vikas Bhawan
It is alleged that the payment of the high
quantity of cement and iron has been
made whereas such quantity was not used
in construction of the building for which
the forged records has also been prepared
even some of the record has been
misplaced. The I.O. has recorded the
statement of the witnesses and collected
the material which prima facie discloses
the commission of the offence and for the
purpose of the prosecution the sanction
has
also
been
obtained
from
the
authorities concerned. The I.O. has not
committed any error in submitting the
charge sheet dated 31.5.2008 which
discloses the commission of the offence.
The
learned
Special
Judge
Anti
Corruption has also not committed any
error in taking the cognizance vide order
dated 2.2.2008. The charge sheet has been
submitted on 31.05.2007 in respect of the
incident which had occurred in the year
1998. On the ground of delay of
submission of charge sheet after the
retirement of the applicant is not a proper
ground for quashing the charge sheet.
There is no illegality in submission of the
charge sheet, therefore, the prayer for
quashing the same is refused.

7. However, considering the old age
of the applicant, it is directed that
applicant shall appear before the court
concerned within 30 days from today, in
case he applies for bail, the same shall be
heard and disposed of expeditiously, if
possible on the same day by the court
concerned thereafter in case the applicant
moves discharge application before the
court concerned, the same may be heard
and
disposed
expeditiously
of
in
accordance with the provisions of law.

8. With the above directions, this
application is finally disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.02.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28040 of 2004

Chhote Lal

...Petitioner
Versus
Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Bareilly
Region, Bareilly & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kuldeep Jauhri
Sri Dharmendra Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Vipin Sinha
Sri Ashish Srivastava
Sri K.C. Sinha

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947-Section 25F-Retrenchment
compensation-denied
by Tribunal-workman worked only 222
days-240 days to be calculated from the
date
of
termination
after
joining
backwards to 12 months-falure of such
consideration-held-
illegal-matter
remitted
to
back
for
fresh
reconsideration.

Held: Para 9

In the light of the aforesaid judgment,
the Industrial Tribunal is required to
calculate 240 days starting from the date
of the termination and going backwards
12 months which has not been done.
This calculation is required to be based
on the basis of the payment vouchers
issued by the bank and such other
evidence which the parties may placed
before the Tribunal.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1981 SC 1253