Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 851 of 2021 Revisionist :- Radhey Shyam Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Mahesh Narain Singh,M.N. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State/opposite party nos. 1, 2 & 3.
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the revisionist against impugned order dated 10.03.2021 passed by the Special Judge, Special Court No. 3 (Prevention of Corruption Act), Varanasi in Misc. Case No. Nil/2021 (Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs. State) arising out of Case Crime No. 0098 of 2019, under Sections 193, 420, 423, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station-Cantt., District-Varanasi seeking a direction to the opposite party no. 3 (Investigating Officer of the case) to take the documents adduced by the revisionist on record of the investigation of this case.
The brief facts of the case as argued by learned counsel for the revisionist are that on 26.01.2019 F.I.R. was lodged by Mr. Devendra Singh, Inspector Vigilance, Varanasi against the revisionist, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0098 of 2019, under Sections 193, 420, 423, 468, 471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station-Cantt., District-Varanasi. During investigation revisionist has moved several representations for inclusion and consideration of his submissions and relied upon documents in the investigation, which are as under :
(a) Representation dated 04.12.2017 was given by the revisionist through proper channel before the Principal Secretary, Vigilance, Lucknow.
(b) Representation dated 14.08.2018 was given by the revisionist through the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Varanasi before the Principal Secretary, Vigilance, Secretariat U.P. at Lucknow.
(c) Revisionist also sent letter on 31.08.2018 through the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Varanasi to the Principal Secretary, Vigilance, Lucknow.
(d) On 03.10.2018, revisionist sent letter through the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Varanasi to the Additional Chief Secretary, U.P. Government, Lucknow.
(e) On 02.11.2018, another letter was sent to the Additional Chief Secretary, Vigilance, Lucknow through the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Varanasi for granting an opportunity of hearing in the matter.
(f) On 15.12.2020, revisionist moved an application before Additional Chief Secretary, Vigilance/Home, U.P., Lucknow praying therein to given an opportunity to him to place his stand (filed as Annexure No. 3).
(g) On 06.01.2021 and 29.01.2021, revisionist moved an application before Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Varanasi requesting him to provide an opportunity to produce evidence in the investigation (filed as Annexure Nos. 4 and 5).
(h) Comprehensive and detailed representation dated 15.02.2021 annexing relevant documents was also given to Shri Ajit Kumar Rai (Investigating Officer of this case) (filed as Annexure No. 6).
(i) On non-considering the aforesaid representation dated 15.02.2021, the revisionist again sent his representation dated 01.03.2021 before Additional Chief Secretary (Vigilance and Home), U.P., Lokbhawan, Lucknow (filed as Annexure No. 7).
It is the case of revisionist that when the above mentioned authorities did not pay any heed to the legitimate request of the revisionist, then he having been left with no other option moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned court below requesting inter alia that direction may be issued to the investigating officer to consider his submissions and documents in the investigation and to conduct fair investigation in the matter, but the same has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.03.2021 mainly on the ground that the same is not maintainable. Assailing the order dated 10.03.2021 main grievance of the revisionist is that the fair and transparent investigation is a legal right of the accused revisionist, therefore, it was bounded duty of the investigating officer to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the accused revisionist as well as to consider the documents submitted by him during the course of investigation.
Learned counsel for the revisionist in support of his submissions relating to grievance of the revisionist has placed reliance upon Regulation 107 of U.P. Police Regulations as well as judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 1, in which the Apex Court has held that "the investigation should be fair, transparent and explore to entire compliance with the basic rules of law"; in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. The Principal Secretary & Others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 532, in which the Apex Court has held that "the investigation of the police should be fair, impartial and not influenced by external causes" and in the case of Babu Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254, the Apex Court has held that "the investigation would be fair, transparent and judicious as is required by the rule of law that the investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct the investigation in a tainted and biased manner".
On the strength of aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court it is submitted that impugned order dated 10.03.2021 is not sustainable under the facts and circumstances of the case.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State/opposite party nos. 1, 2 & 3 submitted that investigation in this case has been concluded on 23.02.2021 considering the relevant documents provided by the revisionist during investigation, in which the charges levelled against the revisionist have been found correct and the report of investigation has already been sent to the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The matter is pending before the Principal Secretary, Vigilance, Government of U.P. at Lucknow for according sanction in the matter. Therefore, as on date the grievance of the revisionist and cause of the instant case does not survive.
In response to the aforesaid submission of learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the revisionist submits that since the charge sheet has not yet been submitted and matter is still pending before the authority concerned of the Government of U.P. for according sanction, therefore, revisionist may be permitted to move his representation before the sanctioning authority.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, it would be appropriate to dispose of the instant revision with the liberty to the revisionist to move his representation before the sanctioning authority/Principal Secretary, Vigilance, Government of U.P., Lucknow. If such representation is moved by the revisionist, the authority concerned may consider the same in accordance with law, in case final order of sanction for the prosecution of the revisionist has not yet been passed.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant revision is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Sunil Kr. Gupta