State of U.P v. Virendra Singh and others), arising out of Crime No
Case Details
Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44475 of 2019 Applicant :- Dr. Dev Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Singh Pundir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Legal Reasoning
9. After lodging of the F.I.R., charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused-applicant along with other five accused, after having recorded the statement of as many as 24 witnesses. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognisable offence is made out against the applicant. The arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and the statement of these witnesses cannot be scrutinised in proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur v. The State Of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. v. P.P. Sharma AIR 1991 SC 1260 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. v. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 10. In view of above, prayer to quash the proceedings of Special Case No. 01 of 2017 (State of U.P. v. Virendra Singh and others), arising out of Crime No. 105 of 2012, under Sections 409, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 472, 13(1)D and 13(2) of Anti-Corruption Act, Police Station - Naagfani, District - Moradabad, pending in the court of Special Judge, Anti- Corruption Act, Court No. 2, Bareilly, is hereby refused. 11. However, it is provided that the applicant may approach the trial court to seek discharge at appropriate stage, if so advised, and before the said forum, he may raise all the pleas which have been taken by him here. If such an application is moved, the same shall be decided without being influenced by the observations made by this Court. 12. Furthermore, it is provided that the applicant shall appear
Arguments
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant Shri Pawan Singh Pundir and in opposition, Shri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Special Case No. 01 of 2017 (State of U.P. v. Virendra Singh and others), arising out of Crime No. 105 of 2012, under Sections 409, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 472, 13(1)D and 13(2) of Anti-Corruption Act, Police Station - Naagfani, District - Moradabad, pending in the court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Act, Court No. 2, Bareilly. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was a veterinary doctor at District Moradabad at the relevant time. Under the advertisement dated 29.12.2004, a recruitment was to be made on the post of Livestock Extension Officer and for recruitment on the said post, an interview was to be held, for which the District Hospital, Moradabad had constituted a committee comprising the applicant as one of its members of the Selection Committee, which comprised two other doctors. The allegation against him is that the said Committee prepared a list of selectees, in which marks were given by the Committee for games which were against the Government Order 20/4/2002/कक-2-2002 dated 20.06.2002 annexed at Page No. 41 of the Paper Book. He has further argued that in departmental enquiry held against him, the Chief Secretary vide order dated 9th of March, 2017 had communicated him that he was not held guilty for making recommendation for selection to be made on 37 posts against the 44 advertised posts on the basis of awarding marks to four candidates on the basis of forged sports certificate. However, a warning was issued to him that in future, he should be cautious and he would not be made part of any selection committee. He has also drawn attention of the Court towards the judgment of this Court dated 21st March, 2006 Satish Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh LAWS (ALL) 2006 3 120 in which attention was drawn towards Para 4, which is as follows :- "18. In view of the conclusion that the U.P. Animal Husbandry Department Livestock Extension and Poultry Development Service Rules, 2002 have been enforced in the year, 2005, the contention raised on behalf of the State Respondents by Sri C.B. Yadav to the effect that the U.P. Animal Husbandry 2 Department Livestock Extension and Poultry Development Service Rules, 2002 are special and therefore exclude the applicability of U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group 'c' Posts (outside the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002 in view of Rule 3 (3) (iii) is totally misplaced inasmuch as on the date of advertisement the aforesaid U.P. Animal Husbandry Department Livestock Extension and Poultry Development Service Rules, 2002 had not been enforced and therefore Rule 3 (3) (iii) was not attracted. No other Government Order has been brought on record by the State respondents for suggesting the exclusion of U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group 'c' Posts (outside the Purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation to record that the written examination which have taken place on 11-9-2005 pursuant to the advertisement dated 29th December, 2004 cannot be legally sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. Respondents are directed to complete the process of selection with reference to the advertisement dated 29th December, 2004 in accordance with law as applicable on the date the advertisement was published, at the earliest possible." 4. Citing the above para, it is argued that one of the unselected candidates had challenged the examination held in pursuance of the advertisement dated 29.12.2004 and the same was quashed by the above order on the ground that U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group 'C' Posts (Outside the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002 in view of Rule 3 (3) (iii) is totally misplaced inasmuch as on the date of advertisement the aforesaid U.P. Animal Husbandry Rules, 2002 had not been enforced and therefore, Rule 3 (3) (iii) was not attracted. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar (1996) 9 SCC 1 Para 23 whereof is extracted herein below:- "23. Even though all these facts including the Report of the Central Vigilance Commission were brought to the notice of the High Court, unfortunately, the High Court took a view that the issues raised had to be gone into in the final proceedings and the Report of the Central Vigilance Commission, exonerating the appellant of the same charge in departmental proceedings would not conclude the criminal case against the appellant. We have already held that for the reasons given, on the peculiar facts of this case, the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant cannot be pursued. Therefore, we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court as stated above. These are the reasons for our order dated 27-3-1996 for allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned criminal proceedings and giving consequential reliefs." 5. Citing the above ruling, it is argued that since the applicant has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings, hence, he could not be subjected to criminal prosecution. 6. It is further argued that the case is pending against the applicant since 2017, but he was never informed by anyone about the same nor had he received any summon so that he could come to know about the pendency of the same. On 11.10.2019, when a letter written by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bareilly was sent to the Principal Secretary, Govt. of U.P. and several other higher authorities, by the higher authorities, he was informed about the pendency of this case. Hence, the proceedings which were pending before the trial court need to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the quashing of the proceedings and apprised the Court that charge- sheet was submitted on 19.11.2016 against the accused- applicant and five other persons and cognisance was taken on 17.01.2017 by the trial court and since thereafter, the order sheet of the court which has been annexed from 17.01.2017 onwards, shows that accused-applicant was running absent throughout. Therefore, it is vehemently argued that charge-sheet does not require to be quashed as the same has been filed after recording statement of as many as 24 witnesses. The entire statement of the witnesses have not been annexed for the perusal of this Court. 8. I have gone through the F.I.R. It is mentioned in it by Omkar Sagar, Inspector, U.P. Vigilance Establishment, Bareilly that on 15.03.2006, a newspaper report was published in Punjab Kesari relating to the point of vacant post, in which several allegations were made against the accused-applicant Dr. Rakesh Kumar, Dr. Virendra Singh, the then Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Moradabad and others. Regarding it, the U.P. Vigilance Establishment, Bareilly was directed to collect the relevant information and the said information which was gathered by the U.P. Vigilance Establishment was transmitted to the Government for consideration of the same and a direction was issued from the Govt. of U.P. vide letter dated 19.12.2006 to initiate an enquiry and after enquiry, it was found that for selection on the above-mentioned post of Livestock Extension Officer, 44 posts were to be filled up in the following manner as per the reserved category candidates, the details of which have been mentioned in the F.I.R. For making selection on the said post, Dr. Virendra Singh, the then Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Moradabad, had issued a direction on 14.06.2006 for the interview of the candidates and the committee was constituted by the then District Magistrate, Moradabad comprising Dr. Bhudev Singh, Dr. Mahesh Kumar and Dr. Rakesh Kumar (accused-applicant), all veterinary doctors. With respect to the present accused, it is mentioned in the F.I.R. that the merit list which was prepared from Roll Nos. 2501-3000 contained signature of the accused- applicant and Shri Shashi Bala, Senior Clerk and in the said list, at Roll No. 2985, Ravindra Kumar, son of Ishwar Pal Singh, was shown candidate of General category, who was awarded four marks on the basis of his participation in National Bodybuilding Championship, Khelgaon held in the year 2003 and accordingly, he was selected, though according to the U.P. Shashan Kramik Anubhag-2's G.O. dated 20.07.2008, no such benefit could have been given for National Bodybuilding Championship. Similarly, candidate of Roll No. 2985 Ravindra Kumar was having '0' (zero) marks in sports, but he was given benefit of four marks and was selected. Such kind of other selections were also found, which were in large numbers mentioned in the F.I.R.
Decision
before the court below within 30 days from today and may move an application for bail. If such an application is moved within the said time limit, the same would be disposed of in accordance with law. 13. For a period of 30 days, no coercive action shall be taken against the accused-applicant in the aforesaid case. But if the accused does not appear before the court below, the court below shall take coercive steps to procure his attendance. 14. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 25.4.2022 Krishna* Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR Date: 2022.04.26 13:53:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad