# Sri Deepak Kumar Revisionist v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 7 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2019-09-25 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1008 of 1996 - **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-deepak-kumar-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-45335 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote A. Criminal Law-Chief Medical Officer granted sanction by signing virtually printed order-only name, address and authorization inserted-rest order printed-no failure of justice-sanction order legal. Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-9) List of cases cited:- ## Text 6 All. Sri Deepak Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 7 even after laying final report is recognized under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 8. In the present case death by burn and injury caused by burn during treatment at Hospital within nine months of marriage is there. F.I.R. is with contention of dowry death. It was investigated. Final report was submitted and this conclusion was on the basis of statement made by deceased in her dying declaration. The contention of complainant was intact in case diary, but the final report was submitted. It was submitted by complainant that this dying declaration was manufactured and frivolous. There was no dying declaration of deceased. But this was not investigated by the investigating officer. Under all above facts and circumstances, final report was rejected with a direction for further investigation and this order was with no illegality or irregularity or in irregular exercise of jurisdiction by Magistrate. 9. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. 9. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. ---------- (2020)06ILR A7 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. Criminal Revision No. 1008 of 1996 Sri Deepak Kumar ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri H.K. Sharma, Sri Ankit Agarwal, Sri Bharat Garg Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. A. Criminal Law-Chief Medical Officer granted sanction by signing virtually printed order-only name, address and authorization inserted-rest order printed-no failure of justice-sanction order legal. Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-9) List of cases cited:- 1. State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri and Others 1996 (1) SCC 542 2. State of Orissa Vs. Mrutunjaya Panda 1998 (2) SCC 414 3. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Harishankar Bhagwan Pd. Tripathi 2010 (8) SCC 655 4.State of Bihar and Others Vs. Rajmangal Ram and Others 2014 (11) SCC 388, 5. State by Police Inspector Vs. T. Venkatesh Murthy (2004) 7 SCC 763 6.State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Virender Kumar Tripathi (2009) 15 SCC 533 7. Neera Yadav Vs. C.B.I. (Bharat Singh) 2006 (ILR)1 All 490 8. Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.K. Sehgal and Another 1999 (8) SCC 501 9. Mohd. Waris and Others Vs. State 2019 (3) Crimes 476 (All) (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) 1. Heard Sri Bharat Garg, learned counsel for revisionist and learned AGA for State of U.P. 2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by judgment and order dated 23.07.1996. The IXth Additional Chief 8 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad vide judgment and order dated 03.12.1993 passed in Case No. 694 of 1993, convicting revisionist and sentencing to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as "R.I.") under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1954") with fine of Rs. 3000/- and in case of non-payment of fine, he shall further suffer three months R.I.. Thereagainst, accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1993 and Appellate Court while allowing appeal partly and modifying sentence to the extent that accused shall suffer six months R.I. instead of one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 3000/- is reduced to Rs. 1000/- and in case of nonpayment of fine, he shall further suffer one month R.I. instead of three months R.I. Being aggrieved, Informant preferred present revision. 3. It is contended that Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as "CMO") in Sanction Order No. P.F.A./Abhi./91 dated 06.05.1991 (Ext. Ka11), while granting sanction has signed a virtually printed order wherein only name, address and authorization has been inserted and rest of order is a printed order. Aforesaid exhibit reads as under:- "In exercise of the powers vested to me under Section 20 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 vide U.P. Government Notification No. 6001/XVI-X722-55 Dated 18-9-76 Published in U.P. Govt. Gazzet Dt. 13-11-76. I Dr. vkj-lh- dfV;kj Chief Medical Officer, Moradabad after perusal of all papers and records applying my own mind hereby give my written consent for prosecution of Sri nhid dqekj s/o Jh cqf)lsu R/o ekS0 v'kksduxj Fkkuk dksrokyh eqjknkckn Moradabad under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and authorise Sri ch0,y0 voLFkh [kk0fu0 u0ik0 eqjknkckn to launch and conduct the case in the Court." 4. English part is printed and Hindi part has been filled in by concerned person. 5. It is not disputed that CMO is a competent authority to grant sanction under Section 20 of Act, 1954 having been authorized by U.P. Government, vide Notification dated 18.09.1976, published in U.P. Gazette dated 13.11.1976. Submission is that mention of words "after perusal of all papers and records applying my own mind" are printed in sanction order and does not show actual application of mind by Sanctioning Authority. 6. However, I find no force in the submission. Where a very large number of sanction orders are required to be issued by CMO under the provisions of Act, 1954, for administrative convenience, some part of such orders have been got printed for expeditious disposal of matter unless it is shown that words contained in the order have actually not been performed or acted upon, it cannot be said that Sanctioning Authority has not applied his mind. 7. The issue as to in what manner any irregularity in the order of sanction would affect an otherwise valid order of trial has been considered time and again. In State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri and Others 1996 (1) SCC 542, Court said that order of sanction is an administrative act. It is sufficient that if Sanctioning Authority has stated that prima-facie case is made out and it is in the interest of justice that accused persons 6 All. Sri Deepak Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 9 should be prosecuted and they shows application of mind on his part and also that he has examined the material placed before him. Court also said that while according sanction, Sanctioning Authority had personally scrutinized file and had arrived at required satisfaction. 8. In State of Orissa Vs. Mrutunjaya Panda 1998 (2) SCC 414, where accused was convicted for offence under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. High Court set aside conviction for want of a valid sanction. Supreme Court reverse order by referring to Section 465 Cr.P.C. and said: "any error or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution shall not be a ground for reversing an order of conviction by the Appellate Court unless in the opinion of that Court a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. " 9. Again, in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Harishankar Bhagwan Pd. Tripathi 2010 (8) SCC 655, the argument was raised that proper sanction was not obtained to prosecute accused persons in a trap case. Supreme Court said that Sanctioning Authority is not required to indicate that he has personally scrutinized the file and arrived at satisfaction for granting sanction and order granting sanction did not suffer from any infirmity to acquit accused persons. Even otherwise, once it is evident that material was placed before Sanctioning Authority and Competent Authority has granted sanction, any error or irregularity in sanction will not be a ground to reverse and order of conviction by Appellate order unless it is shown that three is failure of justice. For this purpose, Section 465 Cr.P.C. may be resorted to which reads as under:- "465. Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission irregularity. (1) Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a Court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. (2) In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings." 10. Again, in State of Bihar and Others Vs. Rajmangal Ram and Others 2014 (11) SCC 388, conviction under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was quashed by High Court on the ground of want of valid sanction. Supreme Court taking a different view, said: "In a situation where under both the enactments any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction, which would also include the competence of the authority to grant sanction, does not vitiate the eventual conclusion in the trial including the conviction and sentence, unless of course a failure of justice has occurred, it is difficult to see how at the intermediary stage a criminal prosecution 10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES can be nullified or interdicted on account of any such error, omission or irregularity in the sanction order without arriving at the satisfaction that a failure of justice has also been occasioned. " 11. Court relied on an earlier decision in State by Police Inspector Vs. T. Venkatesh Murthy (2004) 7 SCC 763 wherein, para-14, Court said: "14. ......Merely because there is any omission, error or irregularity in the matter of according sanction, that does not affect the validity of the proceeding unless the court records the satisfaction that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in failure of justice. " 12. The above view has been reiterated by a three Judges' Bench of Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Virender Kumar Tripathi (2009) 15 SCC 533. 13. Similar view has been reiterated by a Full Bench of this Court also in Neera Yadav Vs. C.B.I. (Bharat Singh) 2006 (ILR)1 All 490 and in para-117, Court referred to the judgement of Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.K. Sehgal and Another 1999 (8) SCC 501. Court held that purpose and object of sanction is to prevent a frivolous or vindictive prosecution and once prosecution has concluded in conviction, it cannot be said that prosecution was frivolous or vindictive. Court quoted following extract of judgement in V.K. Sehgal and another (supra) as under: "If that case ends in conviction there is no question of failure of justice on the mere premise that no valid sanction was accorded for prosecuting that public servant, because the very purpose of providing such a filtering check is to safeguard public servants from frivolous or mala fide or vindictive prosecution on the allegation that they have committed offence in the discharge of their official duties. But once the judicial filtering process is over on completion of the trial the purpose of providing for the initial sanction would bog down to a sur-plusage. This could be the reason for providing a bridle upon the appellate and revisional forums as envisaged in Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure." (Emphasis added) 14. Recently, above view has also been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Waris and Others Vs. State 2019 (3) Crimes 476 (All) wherein in paras- 37 and 38, Court said as under:- "37. A perusal of Section 465 Cr.P.C. shows that it runs into two parts; (i) "on any error, omission or irregularity", and three words have been used and it is said that the same will not justify setting aside of conviction in appeal or revision etc. but with reference to "sanction" only two words "error or irregularity" have been used and the word "omission" has not been mentioned. Meaning thereby, in the cases where sanction is required, if there is an error or irregularity in the "sanction", then conviction or finding will not be reversed in appeal or revision. It contemplates that sanction is there but there is some error or irregularity in granting sanction. If there is a complete "omission" of sanction, then in my view, Section 465 Cr.P.C. will not come into picture and will not help prosecution. It, therefore, leads to irresistible inference that if there is no sanction, whatsoever, by competent authority, it will be a serious flaw and an illegality would vitiate the entire proceedings. 6 All. Hariraj Vs. State of U.P. 11 38. In the cases, where sanction order has been passed but there exists some error or irregularity therein, then if such an objection raised for the first time in appeal or revision that would not vitiate conviction of an accused and Court will not interfere with such conviction and sentence on this account." 15. In this backdrop, when no illegality or irregularity could be pointed out in trial and further that sanction was granted by Competent Authority, I do not find that any case has been made out to show failure of justice so as to warrant interference in the Revision, only on the ground of alleged irregularity in the order of sanction. However, I have also rejected contention that there was any irregularity in the order of sanction. 16. No other point has been argued. 17. Revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 18. Certify the judgment to the Court below immediately. ---------- (2020)06ILR A11 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J. Criminal Revision No. 2220 of 2019 Hariraj ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri Sri Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, Sri Avinash Mani Tripathi Counsel for the Respondent: A.G.A. A. Facts said in-Examination -in-chief-not controverted or cross-examined by other sideunrebutted examination in chief be taken in toto. Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-9) Held, The factum of death, owing to above accident, was said by PW-1 and PW-2, but it was not crossexamined by learned counsel for the defence. Hence, it was unrebutted and uncontroverted sentence of both and the same is to be taken with intact evidence. On the basis of those witnesses as well as formal exhibits, proved by Investigating Officer as well as informant, the judgment of conviction and sentence was passed. It was well in accordance with law and facts on record. There was neither any illegality or irregularity or any perversity in the impugned judgment. (Para 6) List of cases cited:- 1. State of Rajasthan vs Fatehkaran Mehdu, AIR 2017 SC 796 2. Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Anr, (2012) 9 SCC 460 3.Kunwar Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1993 (3) AWC 1305 Alld. (Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.) 1. This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by convictrevisionist Hariraj, against State of U.P., with a prayer for setting aside impugned judgment of conviction and sentence made, therein, by trial Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Moradabad, passed in criminal Case No. 2806 of 2014, related with Case Crime No. 202 of 2012, under Sections 279 and 304-A