Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh of the Allahabad HC dismissed a revision petition and hel that there was no infirmity in the previous order.
In an instant case, the Basic Education Officer had registered an account by the name of the Principal of the Maharana Pratap Junior High School in which scholarship amount had been withdrawn. It was later found out that the account was a forged one and the picture of one identified as Gopal Singh had been affixed to the account. The revisionist was found responsible for the appropriation of the scholarship fund and for causing loss of records. The issue was whether the order was rightly dismissed or whether it required a revision jurisdiction.
Saroj Kumar Dubey argued on behalf of the revisionist that the accusation made was not on the basis of any documentary evidence. Moreover, it was required to get a prosecution sanction granted under the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for prosecuting a public servant. On the other hand it was argued that since the revisionist had retired from the public post, no such sanction under Section 19 was to be deemed necessary.
The Court in this regard relied on the judgement of Chittaranjan Das v. State of Orissa, (2011) 7 SCC 167. The court had clearly pronounced that in such cases where the public servant had retired from his post of responsibility, no sanction was needed under the provisions of Section 19 of the aforementioned Act. The Court also held that the previous order did not suffer from any infirmity.
Shyam Bihari Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Revision No. 3155 of 2019
86540
103860
630
114
59824