# Raju Patel v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1519
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-31
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 6307 of 2023
- **Bench:** Surendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raju-patel-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51286
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 304 r/w 34 & 506 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 319 & 397 - Against
summoning order - In her written report,
informant/P.W.1 (wife of deceased) St.d that
accused took her husband to Jhunjhunpur
crossing, where he was later assaulted - On
being
informed
by
neighbour,
she
and
alongwith co-villagers reached spot and were
told by P.W.2 that revisionist and four others
had beaten her husband and thereafter they
fled away from place of occurrence - She found
him lying injured and groaning - P.W.1 to P.W.4
consistently
corroborated
FIR
version,
implicated revisionist and co-accused in assault
- On consideration of depositions of P.W.1 to
P.W.4 and law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court, there is prima facie evidence to summon
revisionist - Trial Court, being satisfied with
evidence on record, rightly exercised power u/s
319 Cr.P.C., committed no illegality - Revision
lacks merit, dismissed. (Para 17 to 19)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Raju Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1519
mother for reasons which have been
elaborately dealt with in the impugned
order dated 23.08.2023. The learned
appellate court instead of deciding the
matter on merits, declined to exercise its
powers on patently wrong assumptions. It
is difficult to understand how such a view
has been taken by the appellate court that it
had no jurisdiction to hear the challenge to
an order of this nature passed by the Child
Welfare Committee, in appeal. As is quite
obvious, an appeal shall lie to children
court against all the orders passed by the
Child Welfare Committee except where
order has been passed relating to foster care
or sponsorship foster care.

6. In view of the above, I find it
appropriate to set-aside the order passed by
the appellate court and remand the matter
for decision afresh, according to law.

7. Therefore, this revision is finally
disposed of with a direction to the
appellate court to adjudicate the matter of
custody of the victim, according to law and
the order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the
appellate court is hereby set-aside. The
learned appellate court is expected to
decide the appeal expeditiously.

8. Copy of the order be immediately
transmitted to the court concerned.

Note:- Copy of the order may be
circulated to all the District Courts in the
State of U.P.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1519
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.
Criminal Revision No. 6307 of 2023

Raju Patel ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri C.P. Upadhyay, Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 304 r/w 34 & 506 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 319 & 397 - Against
summoning order - In her written report,
informant/P.W.1 (wife of deceased) St.d that
accused took her husband to Jhunjhunpur
crossing, where he was later assaulted - On
being
informed
by
neighbour,
she
and
alongwith co-villagers reached spot and were
told by P.W.2 that revisionist and four others
had beaten her husband and thereafter they
fled away from place of occurrence - She found
him lying injured and groaning - P.W.1 to P.W.4
consistently
corroborated
FIR
version,
implicated revisionist and co-accused in assault
- On consideration of depositions of P.W.1 to
P.W.4 and law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court, there is prima facie evidence to summon
revisionist - Trial Court, being satisfied with
evidence on record, rightly exercised power u/s
319 Cr.P.C., committed no illegality - Revision
lacks merit, dismissed. (Para 17 to 19)

Revision dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander & anr.,
(2012) 9 SCC 460, (Paras 12, 13, 20)

2. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Punj.; (2014) 3 SCC
92, (Paras 105, 106, 117.3 to 117.5)

3.
S.
Mohammad
Ispahani
Vs
Yogendra
Chandak (2017) 16 SCC 226, (Para 35)

4. Rajesh Vs St. of Haryana (2019) 6 SCC 368

5. Yashodhan Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P.& anr.;
(2023) 9 SCC 108, (Paras 22.6 to 22.8)
1520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I, J.)

1. Heard Sri Dr. C.P. Upadhyay,
Advocate assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar
Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist
and Sri Alok Sharma, learned A.G.A.-I for
the State.

2. This criminal revision has been
filed challenging the impugned judgement
and order dated 19.05.2023 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court
No.1, Maharajganj in S.T. No. 48 of 2017
(State Vs. Vishambhar Patel and others)
arising out of Case Crime No. 672 of 2016
u/s 304 r/w 34, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-
Kotwali, District- Maharajganj.

3. By the impugned order, the trial
Court has allowed the application u/s 319
Cr.P.C.
filed
by
opposite
party
no.2/informant, Smt. Heera Devi and
summoned revisionist/accused, Raju Patel
for trial u/s 304 r/w 34, 506 I.P.C.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is
that informant, Smt. Heera Devi w/o late
Gyanesh Yadav had submitted a written
report on 10.12.2016 at 23.50 hours in
Police
Station-
Kotwali,
District-
Maharajganj to the effect that she is
original resident of village- Kashmariya,
Police
Station-
Chowk,
District-
Maharajganj. On 10.12.2016, Vishambhar
Patel s/o Bansidhar Patel of her village took
her husband to Jhunjhunpur crossing. At
about 8 p.m., her neighbour, namely,
Durgesh Yadav received a call on his
mobile from his co-villager Ganesh that
some persons have assaulted and injured
her husband. The informant along with covillagers reached Jhunjhunpur crossing.
There when she met P.W.2 Vijay Kumar
Jaiswal of her village, then he informed her
that accused, Vishambhar Patel, Santosh
Patel, Raju Patel, Vimlesh and Bhunwar
Patel assaulted and caused injury to her
husband, and thereafter, they fled away
from the place of occurrence. When she
reached at the place of occurance along
with co-villagers, she found that her
husband was lying there groaning with
pain. The villagers accompanying her
called upon an ambulance 108 and carried
her husband to District Hospital where after
examination, the doctor declared that her
husband had died.

5. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the revisionist that the trial
Court has passed the impugned order
without considering the evidence on record.
It has next been submitted that the trial
Court has passed the impugned order only
on the basis of evidence of P.W.1 Smt.
Heera Devi. The prosecution has examined
P.W.1 Smt. Heera Devi, P.W.2 Vijay Kumar
Jaiswal, P.W.3 Subhash Yadav and P.W.4
Durgesh Yadav out of which only P.W.2Vijay Kumar Jaiswal is said to be an eyewitness and other witnesses have deposed
that they came to know about the incident
as told by P.W.2 Vijay Kumar Jaiswal.
There is contradiction in the statement of
witnesses with regard to weapon of offence
used by the accused persons as well as who
informed
the
informant
about
the
occurrence, in which her husband received
fatal injuries. It has also been submitted
that in the First Information Report, it is
mentioned that Ganesh Yadav informed the
informant, Smt. Heera Devi about the
incident whereas in her statement, she has
deposed that Rajesh Yadav informed her
about the occurrence in which her husband,
Gyanesh was fatally assaulted. It has also
been submitted that P.W.2 Vijay Kumar
Jaiswal has stated that when he tried to
save the injured/deceased Gyanesh Yadav,
accused also assaulted him but P.W.2 Vijay
2 All. Raju Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1521
Kumar Jaiswal has not been medically
examined and no injury report has been
submitted. It has further been submitted
that
P.W.3
Subhash Yadav
has
not
mentioned who informed him about the
incident. P.W.4 Durgesh Yadav has stated
that both Ganesh Yadav and P.W.2 Vijay
Kumar Jaiswal informed him about the
occurrence.
Therefore,
there
is
contradiction in the statement of witnesses
regarding how they came to know about the
incident.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has
opposed the criminal revision and has
submitted
that
the
trial
court
after
considering the evidence on record as well
as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court regarding summoning of persons u/s
319 Cr.P.C. who have not been named in
the charge-sheet, has rightly summoned the
revisionist for trial. It has also been
submitted that the name of the revisionist
was mentioned in the First Information
Report
and
sufficient
evidence
was
obtained during investigation against him
but the Investigating Officer illegally
dropped his name from the charge-sheet.

7. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the entire record.

8. Before examining the merits of the
present case, the ambit, scope and power of
the Sessions Court under Sections 397 as
well as 319 Cr.P.C. should be discussed and
ascertained.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit
Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and
Another, (2012) 9 SCC 460 in paragraph
nos.12 and 13 of its judgement has narrated
the scope of revision by the High Court u/s
397 Cr.P.C. which is as follows :

"12.Section 397 of the Code
vests the court with the power to call for
and examine the records of an inferior
court for the purposes of satisfying itself
as to the legality and regularity of any
proceedings or order made in a case. The
object of this provision is to set right a
patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or
law. There has to be a well-founded error
and it may not be appropriate for the court
to scrutinise the orders, which upon the
face of it bears a token of careful
consideration and appear to be in
accordance with law. If one looks into the
various judgments of this Court, it
emerges that the revisional jurisdiction
can be invoked where the decisions under
challenge are grossly erroneous, there is
no compliance with the provisions of law,
the finding recorded is based on no
evidence, material evidence is ignored or
judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily
or perversely. These are not exhaustive
classes, but are merely indicative. Each
case would have to be determined on its
own merits.

13.Another well-accepted norm
is that the revisional jurisdiction of the
higher court is a very limited one and
cannot be exercised in a routine manner.
One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it
should not be against an interim or
interlocutory order. The Court has to keep
in mind that the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction itself should not lead to
injustice ex facie. Where the Court is
dealing with the question as to whether
the charge has been framed properly and
in accordance with law in a given case, it
may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of
its revisional jurisdiction unless the case
substantially falls within the categories
aforestated. Even framing of charge is a
much advanced stage in the proceedings
under the CrPC."
1522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. In paragraph nos.17 and 19 of the
aforesaid judgement, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has narrated that before framing a
charge,
what
documents
should
be
considered by the trial court. It has also
provided about the extent of evidence
required for framing of a charge. In
paragraph
no.20
of
the
aforesaid
judgement, the Apex Court has compared
the power and extent of jurisdiction of the
High Court u/s 397 Cr.P.C. and Section 482
Cr.P.C. which is given hereunder :

"20.The jurisdiction of the court
under Section 397 can be exercised so as
to examine the correctness, legality or
propriety of an order passed by the trial
court or the inferior court, as the case may
be.
Though
the
section
does
not
specifically use the expression "prevent
abuse of process of any court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice", the
jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very
limited one. The legality, propriety or
correctness of an order passed by a court
is the very foundation of exercise of
jurisdiction
under
Section
397
but
ultimately it also requires justice to be done.
The jurisdiction could be exercised where there
is palpable error, non-compliance with the
provisions of law, the decision is completely
erroneous or where the judicial discretion is
exercised arbitrarily. On the other hand, Section
482 is based upon the maximquando lex aliquid
alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res
ipsa esse non potesti.e. when the law gives
anything to anyone, it also gives all those things
without which the thing itself would be
unavoidable. The section confers very wide
power on the Court to do justice and to ensure
that the process of the court is not permitted to be
abused."

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 117.3
and 117.4 in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State
of Punjab; (2014) 3 SCC 92 has explained the
meaning of word 'evidence' as used under Section
319 Cr.P.C.. The relevant paragraphs of the
judgement reads as under:-

"117.3. In view of the above position
the word "evidence" in Section 319CrPC has to
be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as
evidence brought during a trial.

Question (ii)-Whether the word
"evidence" used in Section 319(1)CrPC could
only mean evidence tested by cross-examination
or the court can exercise the power under the
said provision even on the basis of the statement
made in the examination-in-chief of the witness
concerned?Answer

117.4. Considering the fact that under
Section 319CrPC a person against whom
material is disclosed is only summoned to face
the trial and in such an event under Section
319(4)CrPC the proceeding against such person
is to commence from the stage of taking of
cognizance, the court need not wait for the
evidence against the accused proposed to be
summoned
to
be
tested
by
crossexamination."

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para
117.5 of the case of Hardeep Singh (supra)
has also explained the nature of satisfaction
required to invoke the power under Section
319 Cr.P.C. to arraign an accused. The
relevant paragraph of the judgement reads
as under:-

"117.5. Though under Section
319(4)(b)CrPC the accused subsequently
impleaded is to be treated as if he had
been an accused when the court initially
took cognizance of the offence, the degree
of satisfaction that will be required for
summoning a person under Section
319CrPC would be the same as for
framing a charge.The difference in the
degree of satisfaction for summoning the
2 All. Raju Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1523
original
accused
and
a
subsequent
accused is on account of the fact that the
trial may have already commenced against
the original accused and it is in the course
of such trial that materials are disclosed
against the newly summoned accused.
Fresh summoning of an accused will
result in delay of the trial therefore the
degree of satisfaction for summoning the
accused (original and subsequent) has to
be different."

13. The scope and ambit of Section
319 Cr.P.C. has been well-settled by the
pronouncement of Constitution Bench of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hardeep Singh
Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3
SCC 92 and paras 105 and 106 which are
relevant for the purpose are reproduced
hereunder :

"105. Power under Section 319
Cr.P.C, 1973 is a discretionary and an
extraordinary 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.

106. Thus, we hold that though
only a prima facie case is to be established
from the evidence led before the court, not
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.,
1973. In Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973, 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., 1973 to form any
opinion as to the guilt of the accused."

14. In S. Mohammad Ispahani Vs.
Yogendra Chandak (2017) 16 SCC 226, this
Court has observed and held as under :

"35. It needs to be highlighted
that when a person is named in the FIR by
the
complainant,
but
police,
after
investigation, finds no role of that particular
person and files the charge-sheet without
implicating him, the Court is not powerless,
and at the stage of summoning, if the trial
court finds that a particular person should
be summoned as accused, even though not
named in the charge-sheet, it can do so. At
that stage, chance is given to the
complainant also to file a protest petition
urging upon the trial court to summon other
persons as well who were named in the FIR
but not implicated in the charge sheet.
Once that stage has gone, the Court is still
not powerless by virtue of Section 319 of
the Cr.P.C. However, this section gets
triggered when during the trial some
evidence surfaces against the proposed
accused."

15. In the case of Rajesh Vs. State of
Haryana
(2019)
6
SCC
368,
after
considering the observations made by this
1524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court in Hardeep Singh (supra) referred to
hereinabove,
this
Court
has
further
observed and held that even in a case where
the stage of giving opportunity to the
complainant to file a protest petition urging
upon the trial court to summon other
persons as well who were named in F.I.R.
but not implicated in the charge-sheet has
gone, in that case also, the Court is still not
powerless by virtue of Section 319 Cr.P.c.
and even those persons named in the F.I.R.
but not implicated in charge-sheet can be
summoned to face the trial provided during
the trial some evidence surfaces against the
proposed accused.

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Yashodhan Singh and others vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another;
(2023) 9 SCC 108 has explained the law
purported by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Hardeep Singh (supra) regarding
the evidence required the satisfaction of the
Court for summoning a person under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. The paragraph Nos.
22.6, 22.7 and 22.8 which are relevant for
the purpose are reproduced hereunder :

"22.6. It was also observed by
this Court in Hardeep Singh [Hardeep
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92
: (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] that apart from
evidence in the strict legal sense recorded
during trial, any material that has been
received by the court after cognizance is
taken and before the trial commences, can
be utilised only for corroboration and to
support the evidence recorded by the court
to invoke the power under Section
319CrPC. Holding that the expression
"evidence" must be given a broad
meaning, it was observed that material
which is not exactly evidence recorded
before the court, but is a material
collected by the court, can be utilised to
corroborate evidence already recorded for
the purpose of summoning any other
person, other than the accused. Such
material would be supportive in nature to
facilitate the exposition of any other
accomplice whose complicity in the
offence may have been suppressed or had
escaped the notice of the court. Therefore,
any material brought before the court
even prior to the trial can be read within
the meaning of the expression "evidence"
for the purpose of Section 319CrPC.
While considering the evidence that
emanates during the trial, it was observed
by this Court that evidence recorded by
way of examination-in-chief and which is
untested
by
cross-examination
is
nevertheless evidence which can be
considered by the court for the exercise of
power under Section 319CrPC so long as,
it would appear to the court that some
other person who is not facing the trial,
may also have been involved in the
offence.

22.7. Further, Section 319CrPC
also uses the words "such person could be
tried", which means not to have a minitrial at the stage of Section 319CrPC by
having
examination
and
crossexamination and thereafter coming to a
prima facie conclusion on the overt act of
such person sought to be added. Such a
mini-trial will affect the right of the
person sought to be arraigned as an
accused rather than not having any crossexamination at all. As under Section
319(4)CrPC, such a person has the right
to
cross-examine
the
prosecution
witnesses
and
examine
the
defence
witnesses and advance his arguments. It
was further observed that the power under
Section 319CrPC can be exercised even
after completion of examination-in-chief
and the court does not have to wait till the
said
evidence
is
tested
on
cross-
2 All. Raju Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1525
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 persons, not
facing the trial in the offence.
22.8. 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.
Therefore,
such
satisfaction is sine qua non for exercise of
power under Section 319CrPC. Ultimately,
the exercise of power is for the trial of
such persons summoned together with the
accused already on trial and not for
conviction with the accused. Therefore, at
that stage, the court need not form any
definite opinion as to the guilt of the
accused."

17. In light of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above
mentioned judgements regarding the ambit
and scope of criminal revision under
Section
397
Cr.P.C.,
requirement
of
evidence for summoning the accused under
Section
319
Cr.P.C.
and
facts
and
circumstances of the present case and
evidence available on the trial Court record
is being examined. The First Information
Report related to Case Crime No.672 of
2016, under Sections 147 and 304 I.P.C.
was lodged by the informant, namely,
Heera Devi w/o Gyanesh Yadav (deceased)
on 10.12.2016. In her written report, she
has narrated that on 10.12.2016 in the
night, the accused, Vishambar Patel, who is
resident of her village, took her husband
Gyanesh Yadav to Jhunjhunpur crossing. At
about 8 p.m., Ganesh Yadav informed on
the mobile of her neighbour Durgesh Yadav
that some persons have assaulted and
injured her husband, Gyanesh Yadav. On
the information given by Durgesh Yadav,
informant along with co-villagers reached
Jhunjhunpur crossing, where P.W.2-Vijay
Kumar
Jaiswal
informed
her
that
revisionist-Raju Patel and four other named
accused persons have beaten and assaulted
her husband and thereafter, they fled away
from the place of occurrence. When she
reached there along with co-villagers, she
found that her husband was lying there
groaning with pain. P.W.1-Heera Devi has
given similar statement before trial Court
regarding her husband, leaving her house
with co-accused, Vishambar Patel. Her
neighbour- Durgesh Yadav informed her
about the incident. P.W.2 Vijay Kumar
Jaiswal also informed the informant about
the name of revisionist along with four
other accused persons involved in the
alleged crime of assault on her husband.
P.W.1-Heera Devi has also narrated in her
deposition that P.W.3 Subhash Yadav and
Rajesh
Yadav
informed
about
the
complicity of the accused persons in the
assault her husband. P.W.1-Heera Devi is
consistent in corroborating the facts given
by her in the FIR. On the basis of her
written report that when she reached the
place of occurrence, P.W.2 Vijay Kumar
Jaiswal informed her about the accused
persons, who had participated in the
aforesaid crime in question. P.W.2 -Vijay
Kumar Jaiswal also deposed in his
evidence that he saw the participation of
revisionist and other co-accused persons in
the assault of informant's husband. P.W.3
Subhash Yadav and P.W.4 Durgesh Yadav
have also deposed in their evidence that
when they reached at the place of
occurrence, they saw the injured, who was
lying there groaning with pain. They have
also deposed that P.W.2 Vijay Kumar
Jaiswal informed them the name of
revisionist and four other accused persons,
who had participated in the assault on the
deceased Gyanesh Yadav.
1526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. Taking into the consideration of
the deposition of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4
and in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, there is
prima facie evidence to summon the revisionist,
namely, Raju Patel for trial under Sections 304/34
and 506 I.P.C.

19. From the above discussions, it can be
concluded that the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast
Track Court No.1, Maharajganj has after being
satisfied with the evidence on record summoned
the accused as per provision under Section 319
Cr.P.C. The trial Court has not committed any
illegality, irregularity or impropriety in passing the
impugned order. Therefore, I do not find any merit
in the revision which is liable to be dismissed and
is hereby dismissed accordingly.

20. It is hereby made clear that I have not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case
and the veracity or deposition of the witnesses.
The trial Court is free to give its own findings and
may decide the case in question, in accordance
with law, without being prejudiced by any
observation made in this order.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1526
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA,
J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I,
J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 248 of 2024

Rakesh Babu ...Petitioner
Versus
The U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shireesh Kumar, Utkarsh Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents:
Shishir Jain

Criminal Law - The Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19 -
Quashing of Prosecution Sanction Order Denied
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ
petition challenging the prosecution sanction
order dated 26.06.2023 under Section 19 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holding that
such challenges are not maintainable at the pretrial stage. The court emphasized that the
validity
of
the
sanction
order,
including
compliance
with
procedural
requirements,
should be assessed during trial after evidence is
presente (Paras 11, 42-43)

Non-Applicability of Section 17A of the
Prevention of Corruption Act The court
rejected the petitioner's argument that prior
approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, was mandatory, as the
alleged offence of amassing disproportionate
assets under Section 13(1)(b) was not directly
relatable to recommendations or decisions made
in discharge of official duties. Section 17A
applies only to offences linked to official
functions, not to illicit enrichment. (Paras 14,
24, 30-31)
Prior Disciplinary Exoneration Not a Bar to
Criminal Prosecution The court held that the
petitioner's exoneration in earlier disciplinary
proceedings (concluded on 06.06.2023) did not
preclude criminal prosecution on the same
charges, distinguishing Ashoo Surendranath
Tewari Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police
(2020). The court clarified that disciplinary
proceedings,
based
on
preponderance
of
probability, differ from criminal trials requiring
proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 33-34,
39-41)

Judicial
Precedents
on
Sanction
and
Investigation Citing Nara Chandrababu Naidu Vs
St. of Andhra Pradesh (2024), Yeshwanth Sinha
Vs CBI (2020), and Yash Kumar Verma Vs St. of
U.P. (2023), the court underscored that Section
17A's requirement for prior approval does not
apply to offences unrelated to official duties.
The court also relied on CBI Vs Ashok Kumar
Aggarwal (2013) to hold that sanction orders'
validity must be tested during trial. (Paras 15,
24-26,
42)