1. Heard.
2. This petition has been filed by 16 petitioners alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 23.09.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.23002 (M/B) of 2019:Shiv Pal Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No.23002 (M/B) of 2019: Shiv Pal Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, with a prayer for a mandamus to be issued to the Investigating Officer who was respondent no.3 to the writ petition to conduct fair and impartial investigation and to give adequate opportunity to the petitioners to explain their stand by producing various documents before him relating to the First Information Report that had been filed against them. The Investigating Officer had filed a counter affidavit wherein it was mentioned that documents, if any, are provided by the petitioners would be considered during the course of the investigation and that it was still open for the petitioners to provide any further document which they wish.
4. The Division Bench thereafter disposed of the petition and observed that there is no dispute between parties and it is the case of the opposite parties that they will act in accordance with law specifically with relation to Regulation 107 of the Police Regulations and will consider the document relevant to the case.
5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that under Regulation 107 of the Police Manual, a duty is cast upon the Investigating Officer to fairly conduct the investigation and he must always give accused persons an opportunity of producing defense evidence before him, and must consider such evidence carefully if produced. Burglary investigations should be conducted in accordance with the special orders on the subject.
6. After the order passed by the Writ Court on 23.09.2019, the petitioners submitted a certified copy to the Investigating Officer and also to the Superintendent of Police praying for its compliance. The petitioners also made representation on 26.01.2019 and 29.11.2019 to the Investigating Officer requesting him to take into account the documents annexed with their explanation. However, the Investigating Officer did not comply with the Regulation 107 as directed by the High Court and no notice under Section 41 or Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. was ever issued to the petitioners to take their statements and their documents by the Investigating Officer. The State Government is adamant to proceed against the petitioners on the basis of the report submitted by the Investigating Officer which report is fraud because the Investigating officer has not followed the Regulation 107 of the Police Regulations.
7. Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Aniruddh Singh, has pointed out the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party wherein it has been stated that Case Crime No.1 of 2014 was registered under Section 409, 120D of the I.P.C. read with Section 13(1) D read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the petitioners and other accused at Police Station Gomti Nagar Lucknow, on the basis of recommendations made by Hon'ble Lokayukt regarding corruption and irregularities involved in the purchase and supply of sandstone and construction of gardens and memorials in Lucknow and Noida between the year 2007 and 2011. The case was entrusted to the Vigilance Establishment for investigation. The petitioners during the course of enquiry appeared before the Lokayukt and supplied all relevant document to Economic Offence Wing. All relevant document including statement of the petitioners under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were taken by the Investigating Agency. A draft final report was prepared and submitted to the State Government on 12.03.2019 as per the Vigilance Manual. The Government approved the recommendation made in the draft final report on 15.07.2019 for prosecution of the petitioner and other co-accused before the competent court.
8. The petitioners' writ petition was disposed of after the State Government had passed the order dated 15.07.2019, only on 23.09.2019 directing the Investigating Officer to take documents which the petitioners wish to submit in their defense and if they were relevant to the case. In the draft final report that was submitted to the State Government, sufficient evidence against the petitioners were already on record. In the follow up of this Court's order dated 23.09.2019, a supplementary final report was submitted to the State Government on 17.02.2020 in respect of the representation of the petitioners.
9. Learned counsel for the opposite party has referred to the language of the order of the writ court and also the submission made in paragraph-18 of the counter affidavit that 22 annexures out of 29 annexures that were submitted by the petitioners were taken on record. Such documents were found relevant by the Investigating Officer. Most of the document provided by the petitioners were already on record or were irrelevant to the investigation being conducted by the opposite party. On 14.12.2019, Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam issued sanction order of 32 accused persons including the petitioners.
10. Learned counsel for the opposite party has also placed reliance upon application for disposal of contempt petition filed by the opposite party later on in this contempt petition and has also placed reliance upon a judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 21.01.2021 in Writ Petition No.25508 (M/B) of 2020, wherein this Court considered the bunch of writ petitions challenging the sanction order dated 16.12.2019 and consequential orders with respect to the same case crime no.1 of 2014 and had observed that this was the case where challenge was made to the sanction order on various grounds and it was not the case where there was absence of sanction to prosecute. The validity of the sanction order could be looked into by the concerned court and in case the petitioners were aggrieved by any order passed by the trial court they have remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court had given liberty to the petitioners to question the validity of the sanction before the court concerned at the appropriate stage.
11. Learned counsel for the opposite party has also pointed out that there are 82 accused against whom charge sheet has been prepared including the petitioners. But in case of the petitioners' case because of the pendency of the contempt petition, the charge sheet could not be filed in the trial court by the Investigating Officer. With respect to other petitioners, who are not petitioners in this contempt petition charge sheet has also been filed.
12. This Court has carefully considered the language of the order passed by the Writ Court on 23.09.2019. It appears that after affidavits were exchanged between the parties, the Court had heard the Additional Government Advocate and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners. The prayer made by learned Senior Counsel was that the investigation should be conducted in a fair manner and as per the Regulation 107 of the Police Regulations. Learned A.G.A. had pointed out that in the counter affidavit, it had been submitted that all documents provided by the petitioners had been taken on record by the prosecution agency and it was still open for them to provide any further documents which cannot be considered during the course of investigation.
13. The Court thereafter observed that since there was no dispute between the parties, they will act in accordance with law specifically with relation to Regulation 107 of the Police Regulations and while considering the documents relevant to the case, the writ petition was disposed of.
14. There has been no observations in the writ Court's order regarding the merits of the petitioners' contention that only some document was looked into by the Investigating Agency and not others which were given by them. There is also no observation by the Division Bench in its order dated 23.09.2019 that even irrelevant document which petitioners wished to submit should be looked into. The direction is only to consider the documents "relevant to the case".
15. The order dated 23.09.2019 has been sufficiently complied with by the opposite party in the considered opinion of this Court.
16. No case of willful disobedience of the order dated 23.09.2019 is made out.
17. The contempt petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.8.2021 Rahul