VIJAY LAXMI Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2005-10-104
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 17,2005

VIJAY LAXMI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)POONAM Srivastava, J. Supplementary affidavit filed today, which is taken on record.
(2.)HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
This application has been filed for quashing the proceeding in criminal case No. 563 of 1995, State v. Dr. Vijay Laxmi Saxena under Sections 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act pending before Special Judge, Varanasi (Anti Corruption Act) on two grounds. First ground is that investigation was carried out by the C. O. not by the Deputy S. P. whereas the Act prescribes investigation should not be carried out by any officer other than lower rank of the Deputy S. P. Second ground is that the sanction granted by the competent authority is improper. In para Nos. 15 and 16 of the affidavit, it has been stated on the top of the memo of sanction that the date is given as 1-3-2004 and thereafter at the bottom the date mentioned is 17-3-2004. Therefore, it is submitted that there is discrepancy in the two dates and no prosecution can continue on the basis of an improper sanction. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Atma Prasad Agarwal v. State of U. P. 2004 (2) JIC 253 (All ). I have gone through the entire record. It is true that this Court has held that the investigation should be carried out by the competent authority, not by an officer of lower rank than Deputy S. P. consequently, proceedings were quashed in the case of Atma Prasad Agarwal on account of the delay. However, it is open to the applicant to raise all these questions during the trial before the Special Judge, which shall be taken into consideration before framing of charge.

This application is finally disposed of with a direction that the applicant shall be permitted to move an application through counsel by raising these entire preliminary objections, which will be decided in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing by a reasoned order. In the event, an application for personal exemption is moved by the applicant, the same will be considered by the Court concerned and appropriate order be passed in accordance with law. The applicant shall not be compelled to appear in the Court on each and every date in case she gives an undertaking that she will be present on such date if her presence is required for the purpose of evidence etc. by the Court. Application disposed of. .



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.