Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2083 of 2019 Revisionist :- Vashist Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Shamsher Bahadur Maurya,K.K.Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of revisionist is taken on record.
Heard Sri K.K. Singh and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the revisionist and Ms. Archana Singh, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
This revision has been filed with the prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 21.2.2018 passed by Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Court No.1, Varanasi in S.T. No.01 of 2018, Case Crime No.167 of 2018, u/s 13 (1)b/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Ubhaun, district Ballia.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the FIR was registered against the revisionist for offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but during the course of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist for the offence u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 5.11.2018. The learned trial court is inclined to frame charges against the revisionist under Section 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 though no sanction has been granted by the competent authority for framing charge against the revisionist under Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence he has drawn attention of the Court towards the order granting sanction of prosecution of the revisionist by the competent authority vide order dated 30.10.2018, copy of the same is annexed along with supplementary affidavit on page 7 and 8.
Learned AGA on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned order and has drawn the attention of the court towards sanction order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Ballia wherein the sanction for prosecution of the revisionist has been given by the District Magistrate under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended Act 2018) by which he has categorically mentioned that the sanction for prosecution of the revisionist is granted in any of the offences punishable under the Act as has been provided under Section 19 of the Act, hence the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court.
After having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the sanction order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Ballia in which he has granted sanction for prosecution of the revisionist under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amended Act 2018) for any of the offences punishable mentioned under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the trial court after considering the same has passed the impugned order which does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error, hence no interference is required by this Court. The prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.
This revision lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 Gaurav