Delhi District Court
State vs . Narender Kumar Jain on 24 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
C.C.NO. : 28/12
Unique Case ID : 02401R0000981999
STATE VS. NARENDER KUMAR JAIN
S/o Sh. Attar Singh Jain,
R/o 2382A, Narela, Mandi Extn.,
Delhi110040.
FIR NO. : 20/1991
U/S : 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 r/w Section 420/468/471 IPC
P.S. : ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH,
DELHI
Date of Institution 06.01.1999
Judgment reserved on 23.03.2012
Judgment delivered on 24.03.2012
JUDGMENT
1. The precise case of the prosecution is that in the year 1991 the Inspector Abhay Ram while posted at Anti Corruption Branch received a complaint from the office of Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 1 of 26 Delhi in which it has been alleged that the accused Narender Kumar Jain who was posted as Inspector in Food & Supply Department at Circle No.11, Timarpur was misappropriating the cheques and bank drafts as deposited by various Fair Price Shop (FPS) Owners for drawing their quota of ration. On concluding the enquiry, said Inspector Abhay Ram prepared his Report Ex.PW7/A, on the basis of which the FIR bearing no.20/91 relating to the present case was registered at PS AC Branch, copy of which is Ex.PW17/B.
2. After the registration of this case, the Investigation of the case was taken up by the IO. During the course of the Investigation, the IO recorded the statement of PWs and various relevant records were seized by the IO from various Departments i.e. Food & Civil Supply, FCI, DSCSC, Banks etc. After conclusion of the Investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court.
3. After compliance with the provision U/S 207 of Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence punishable U/S 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and U/S 420/468/471 IPC was framed against accused on 20.3.2004 to which accused pleaded not guilty and C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 2 of 26 claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 31 prosecution witnesses namely Sh. O.P.Aneja, the then Manager, Punjab National Bank, Mall Road, a formal witness as PW1, Sh.Dharmender Kumar Jain, an employee of Vaish Cooperative Adarsh Bank, a formal witness as PW2, Sh.Madan Puri, the then Assistant Manager, Punjab National Bank, Mall Road, Branch, Delhi a formal witness as PW3, Sh.Ram Prakash, the owner of FPS no.7441 as PW4, Sh. Ram Kishor, owner of FPS no.7438 as PW5, Sh. Hukum Chand Jain who was also posted as Area Inspector in Circle No.11, Timar Pur, Delhi as PW6, the then Inspector Abhay Ram/initial IO as PW7, Sh. Neeraj Singh who is also a owner of FPS as PW8, Sh. Moti Lal who was the owner of FPS no.628 as PW9, Sh. Anil Kumar Aggarwal, an employee of Allahabad Bank, Tagore Park Branch, Delhi a formal witness as PW10, Sh.Vijay Pal Jain, the then Food & Supply Officer in Circle No.6 and Circle No.11 as PW11, Sh. Mohan Lal, owner of FPS no. 7426 as PW12, Naraini Devi, owner of FPS no.7046 as PW13, Sh. Ashok Kumar Kapoor, owner of FPS no. 74923 as PW14, Sh.V.K.Shraf, the then Sr. Manager, UCO Bank, Mukhjerjee Nagar Branch, Delhi as PW15, Sh.Vinod Kumar, owner C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 3 of 26 of FPS no.2 as PW16, Sh. P.K.Dass, the then Manager in Allahabad Bank, Timarpur, Delhi, a formal witness as PW17, Sh. Jagdish Thakkar, the then Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, BBM Depot, a formal witness as PW18, Shree Dutt who was working as AGIII, Delhi States Civil Supplies, FCI, Narela Godown, a formal witness as PW19, Sh. Neeraj Gulati who was working as GradeII, DASS in Administration Branch of Food & Supply Department, a formal witness as PW20, Sh. Rajeev Luthra, a formal witness as PW21, Sh. Somesh, Assistant Manager in Delhi State Cooperative Bank, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, a formal witness as PW22, Sh. Sunil Dogra, Jr. Manager in Vaish Cooperative Adarsh Bank, Dariya Ganj, Delhi, a formal witness as PW23, Sh. Arun Kumar, Sr. Manager, PNB, Mall Road, Delhi, a formal witness as PW24, Sh. Rajinder Pal Arora, the then FSO in Food & Supply Department as PW25, Sh.Ram Dass, who was posted as Assistant GradeIII in Delhi State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., a formal witness as PW26, Sh. Ajit Singh Khatri who was working in the office of Food & Supply Department, Circle No.11, Timar Pur, Delhi, a formal witness as PW27, Sh. Vijay Kumar Khatri, the then Manager in Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Moti Nagar Branch, Delhi a formal witness as PW28, Sh. R.K.Chauhan, the then Food & Supply Officer (Vigilance), Delhi as PW29, C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 4 of 26 Sh.Harshvardhan, the then Sr.Scientific Officer(Documents), FSL, Delhi as PW30 and Sh.A.K.Purohit, the then Food & Supply Officer, Administration & Vigilance in Food & Supply Department as PW31.
5. After closure of the PE, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the accused claimed to be innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and added that it was normal practice amongst the FPS owners for using each other's draft for procurement of their quota of Specified Food Articles (SFA).
6. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.Ld. Counsel for the accused and Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant record.
7. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that this accused who was posted as Inspector of Food & Supply Department in Circle No.11, Timarpur during the year 1991 had been discharging his official duties honestly and dedicatedly but has been falsely implicated in this case having no concern with the alleged offence. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that there is no reason on the part of this accused to commit any sort of forgery concerning C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 5 of 26 the FPS number on the back side of the Bank Draft/Pay Order to divert the release of the Specified Food Articles (SFAs) from the entitled FPS Holder depositing the Bank Draft/Pay Order to any other FPS Holder and therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that though as per the order dated 23.8.2003 passed by the predecessor of this court, the IO was under obligation to conduct Investigation to ascertain about the beneficiary arising out of the alleged malpractice on changing the number of the FPS Holder on the back side of the Bank Draft/Pay Order deposited for the release of the SFAs and as there is nothing on record to establish that the accused was beneficiary of the same and hence, accused deserves to be acquitted. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that there is nothing on record to establish the alleged cutting, overwriting as found on the back side of the certain Pay Orders/Drafts as available on record has been done by this accused nor the FSL Report indicated anything as against the accused and therefore, this accused deserves to be acquitted. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that none of the PWs including several FPS Owners have deposed as against this accused relating to the alleged offence and therefore, this accused deserves to be acquitted. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that even C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 6 of 26 as per the case of the prosecution, this accused was a public servant being working as Inspector in Food & Supply Department, Govt. of Delhi during the period of the commission of the alleged offence but no Sanction U/S 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 from the competent authority for launching prosecution was obtained by the IO and as the punishment of compulsory retirement was awarded by the Disciplinary Authority and as the order dated 15.4.1997 as passed by the Disciplinary Authority and order dated 30.12.97 as passed by the Appellate Authority have been quashed and period of absence from duty from the date of compulsory retirement till re instatement was ordered to be treated as diesnon vide order dated 17.2.1999 as passed by Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi and subsequent order dated 19.8.2003 as passed by Central Administrative Tribunal whereby allowing the application of this accused and quashing the impugned order and copy of both said orders have been placed on record and therefore, due to want of said Sanction against the accused for launching prosecution, the accused deserves to be acquitted. Ld. Counsel for the accused also added that this accused has already suffered a lot by facing miserable hardship for such considerable period during the pendency of this case proceeding as this case was registered in the year 1991 and about 21 years has C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 7 of 26 already elapsed and during the pendency of this case proceeding, the accused has met with severe accident as a result of which this accused is unable to move or even to stand and is completely bedridden for last more than 2 years and therefore, has been produced before this court on wheel chair in the shape of stretcher. Thus, Ld. Counsel for the accused urged for acquittal of this accused.
8. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 31 PWs have clearly established its case as against the accused and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the charged offence. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that nonobtaining of the Sanction by the IO cannot be treated as fatal for the case of the prosecution. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that mere fact that some of the PWs have turned hostile can be of no help for the accused. As regards the miserable bedridden condition of the accused, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that he is having sympathy for the accused concerning the said aspect as a human being but said fact cannot weaken the case of the prosecution. Ld. APP for the State thus urged for conviction of the accused for the charged offence accordingly.
C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 8 of 26
9. As per the case of the prosecution, the basic allegation as against the accused is that while he was posted as Inspector in the Department of Food & Supply at Circle No. 11, Timarpur during the year 1991, has delivered certain Specified Food Articles (SFA) i.e. wheat, rice as applied and amount of SFA as required by them has been deposited in the form of Pay Order/Bank Draft by certain FPS Owners to other FPS Owners who has not deposited the amount in this respect by cutting and altering the number of FPS Holder as mentioned on the back side of the said Pay Order/Cheques. However, from the perusal of the material available on the record, it is clearly reflected that none of the PW as examined by the prosecution has deposed as against the accused in this respect. To the contrary, from the perusal of the record, it is reflected that several material PWs in the form of FPS Owners are found to have turned hostile and have not deposed anything against this accused and despite searching cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, no incriminating material could be abstracted from them for survival of the case of the prosecution.
10. PW4/Ram Prakash who is the owner of FPS No. 7441, Circle No. 11, Timarpur and is a material witness but found to have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. As said C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 9 of 26 PW4/Ram Prakash has deposed that in the year 1991 he got prepared a Bank Draft for sum of Rs.20,000/ in favour of FCI towards payment of wheat and rice and delivered the same to Bhagwan Das another FPS Holder for depositing the said Bank Draft in the Office. He further deposed that after about 34 days, said Bhagwan Das intimated him that he had utilized said Bank Draft of Rs.20,000/ for drawing wheat and rice against his FPS and told him that he would make payment of said Draft of Rs.20,000/ and thereafter, paid Rs.20,000/ to him. Said PW4/Ram Prakash has been cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP but it was of no help for the prosecution as he has reiterated his earlier stand in the cross examination also.
11. Similarly, PW8/Neeraj Singh who was also running a Fair Price Shop and is a material witness found to have not deposed anything as against this accused by turning hostile and nothing material could be abstracted from him in cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP. In the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, said PW8/Neeraj Singh has clearly stated that he did not tell the police that someone has cut the number of his FPS and weight of the rice and had mentioned some other number on the back side of his Draft. In the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, said PW8 has also stated C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 10 of 26 that sometime Draft of one FPS Holder has been used by some other FPS Holder.
12. Similarly, PW9/Moti Lal who is also running a Fair Price Shop Owner bearing number 6278 is found to have not deposed anything as against this accused and no material to help the stand of the prosecution could be abstracted from him even in the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP. As he deposed that in theyear 1991 he was running a Fair Price Shop bearing no. 6278 in the name and style of M/s Moti Lal. He had got prepared two Bank Drafts Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E for the amount of Rs.34,531/ and Rs.585/ respectively for purchasing rationing materials but in the cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP he added as under: "Police did not record my statement. I did not tell the police that Investigating Officer had shown these two bank drafts to me and I had told him that after making endorsement regarding shop number and weight of articles to be purchased, on the back of these two bank drafts I had handed over the same to one H.C. Jain Circle Inspector. Confronted with portion A to A of his statement Mark 9/A where it is so recorded. I did not C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 11 of 26 tell the police that some one had made cutting on the endorsement on the back of bank drafts regarding FPS numbers."
13. Similarly, PW13/Smt. Narayani Devi who is the owner of FPS No. 7046, Circle No. 11 and is a material witness is found to have not deposed anything as against this accused and despite cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, no material to help the stand of prosecution could be brought out. Said PW13 has gone to the extent of deposing in the Court as under: "I do not know anything about this case. Police did not meet me ever in this case nor my statement was recorded by the police. Police did not make any inquiry from me. I do not know as to how police came to know my name and address."
14. PW14/Ashok Kumar Kapoor who is the Owner of FPS No. 4923 and is a material PW is found to have deposed that he was the Owner of FPS No. 4923, M/s National Store, B5, Commercial Complex, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and had deposited Draft No. 285123 for Rs.27,571/ dated 21.05.91 for 110 quintal of wheat and C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 12 of 26 its cartage no. 285124 for Rs.495/ dated 21.05.91 in the Circle Office, Timarpur, Delhi with Sh.H.C. Jain, Area Inspector, Mukherjee Nagar. From the said deposition of said PW14, it is clearly reflected that PW14 had deposited the aforesaid two Drafts not with the present accused but with another Inspector namely Sh. H.C. Jain and therefore, present accused cannot be held liable for any misuse of the said Drafts. Said PW14 has further deposed that as he had not received said 110 quintal of wheat, he went to said Sh. H.C. Jain, Area Inspector who assured him that as there was strike in FCI, the supplies were withheld by FCI. Said PW14 further deposed that thereafter on his enquiry from UCO Bank, Mukherjee Nagar from which he had obtained the aforesaid Drafts and came to know that his FPS No. 4923 had been changed to 4130 by making overwriting/ cutting but he do not know as to who had made the same. As said PW14 has deposed in this respect as under: "Then I enquired from my bank UCO Mukherjee Nagar about my draft who told that my drafts mentioned about had been paid in clearing on 14.6.91 and 22.6.91. On seeing my two drafts in the UCO Bank I was stunned to see the back side of the draft where at my FPS No. 4923 (and quantity of 110 C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 13 of 26 quintals wheat) as entered/ written by me had been changed to 4130 by making overwriting, cutting but I do not know as to who had made such overwriting or cutting."
From the aforesaid deposition of PW14, it is clearly reflected that said PW14 has deposited said two Bank Drafts dated 21.05.91 not with this accused but with another Area Inspector namely H.C. Jain and said PW14 has further deposed that he do not know as to who had made the overwriting/cutting on the back side of his said Drafts and therefore, the present accused cannot be held liable for the same. Furthermore, from the perusal of the deposition of PW15/V.K. Saraf, Sr. Manager, UCO Bank, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, it is also clearly established that the aforesaid two Drafts i.e. Draft No. 285123 dated 21.05.91 for Rs.27,571/ and Draft No. 285124 for Rs.495/ dated 21.05.91 were stated to be not available and therefore, could not be produced in the Court during the trial.
15. PW16/Vinod Kumar who is the Owner of FPS No. 2, Circle No. 11, Timarpur, Delhi who is also a material witness is found to have deposed in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel inter C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 14 of 26 alia as under: "The license of FPS No.2 was in the name of my father, who expired on 13.02.91. After process of about 1 ½ year it was transferred in my name. It is correct that I received the complete goods as against the first two drafts deposited by me. I do not remember how much quantity of SFAs against the second pair of drafts or the exact shortage thereafter. After the death of my father I started visiting the office of Food and Supplies Department. I had not received any goods apart from the goods which were due to me against the Drafts deposited by me. I had not received any goods which were short thereafter. I had not lodged any complaint to any officer of F&S Department about the short supply. (Vol. our Assistant Commissioner had asked us about the short goods then I informed about the facts). The cuttings/overwriting on the back side of the draft was not done in my presence. It is correct that as per the urgency, Fair Price Shopkeepers C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 15 of 26 used to take drafts of the other Fair Price Shop holders and used to apply for their quota of SFAs and lateron they would adjust the amounts amongst themselves.
Furthermore, from the perusal of the deposition of said PW16/Vinod Kumar and deposition of PW17/P.K. Das, Manager, Allahabad Bank, Timarpur coupled with Bank Certificate Ex.PW17/A, it is reflected that Draft No. 058345/249 dated 02.05.91 for Rs.630/ in favour of DSC Ltd. and and Draft No. 058348/252 dated 02.05.91 for Rs.38,214/ for 100 quintal of wheat and 40 quintal of rice as issued in favour of SBI Account, FCI as deposited by said PW16 could not be produced in the Court as the original Drafts are stated to be not traceable in the concerned Bank. Besides that PW16 has clearly deposed that the cutting/overwriting on the back side of the Drafts was not done in his presence. Furthermore, said PW16 is also found to have deposed that as per urgency Fair Price Shop Holders used to take Drafts of other Fair Price Shop Holders and apply for their quota of SFAs and later on they adjust the amount amongst themselves and said deposition of PW16 found supported the stand of the accused in this respect.
C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 16 of 26
16. PW6/Sh. Hukum Chand Jain who was also working as Area Inspector, Circle No.11, Timarpur, Delhi alongwith the accused during the relevant period is found to have deposed regarding the procedure adopted in the Circle regarding the allocation of the Ration Items to FPS Holders on deposit of the Draft towards payment of the required Ration Item on behalf of the concerned FPS Holders in the Circle Office. But said PW6/Sh. Hukum Chand Jain is found to have turned hostile on various aspects and was cross examined in detail by Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of the State but he maintained the same stand and even added in his cross examination that he had not made any statement before the Police. However, Police had met him and obtained his signatures on certain papers. Said PW6 has clearly denied for identifying the handwriting and signature of accused as he has deposed in this respect as under: "I cannot identify handwriting and signature of accused on any document due to poor vision and very weak eye sight."
17. It is also revealed from the deposition of PW7, the then Inspector Abhay Ram/IO that he has not found a single Draft which was misappropriated by the accused by transferring the same in his C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 17 of 26 Account. Furthermore, said PW7 has also clearly admitted in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel that he had not seized any record from the FPS Holder to ascertain as to whether they have received the applied goods or not. As said PW7 in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel is found to have deposed in this respect as under: "It is correct that during inquiry I did not found even a single draft which was transferred by the accused in his Account and got encashed.
.................................................................... I have not seized the records of FPS holders who deposited the drafts to find out whether they have received the goods or not."
18. PW11/Vijay Pal Jain who was posted as Food and Supply Officer covering Circle No.6 and Circle No. 11 in the year 1991 and the accused who was posted as Inspector in Circle No.11 at Timarpur Office happened to be Subordinate to him and said PW11 has clearly deposed that he has not received any complaint regarding nonreceipt of goods in respect of the Draft deposited by the FPS Holder. Said PW11 has also further gone to the extent of adding in his deposition C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 18 of 26 in the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel to the effect that he cannot say if the alteration on the back side of the Draft as deposited by the FPS Holder were made by the FPS Holder themselves and not by the accused as said PW11 has deposed in this respect as under: "I cannot say if the alteration was made by FPS holders themselves and not by the accused. The drafts were not submitted to me by the FPS Holders. Vol. The drafts were submitted by them to their area inspectors. The drafts were not delivered to area inspector in my presence."
19. PW12/Mohan Lal who is the Owner of FPS No. 7426, Circle No. 11, Timarpur, Delhi who is also a material witness though deposed in his examinationinchief to the effect that the accused has cheated FPS Holder during his tenure but in the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel has clearly admitted that the cuttings, overwriting on the Drafts were not done in his presence. He has also admitted that he had received the Specified Food Articles (SFAs) for the Draft as deposited by him as he has deposed in this respect as under: "The cuttings, addition, alteration or over writing on C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 19 of 26 the drafts in question were not done in my presence. I am not a hand writing expert. I had received the SFA's for the face value of the drafts deposited by me with the department."
20. PW31/Sh. A.K. Purohit who was posted as Food & Supply Officer (Administration and Vigilance) in Food & Supply Department during the period of registration of this case has deposed that after registration of the case Anti Corruption Department asked for certain documents through the Vigilance Branch of Food & Supply Department and the Staff of the Vigilance Department collected the Record and handed over to the IO. But said PW31 also stated that he has no concerned with the said documents nor Police recorded his statement nor any document was seized in his presence as he has deposed in this respect as under; "The staff of the Vigilance Branch collected the record and handed it over to the Investigating officer. I have no concern with the handing over the documents to the Anti Corruption Branch. I cannot tell what kind of documents were supplied to Anti Corruption Branch by the Staff members. Only the C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 20 of 26 then Circle officer the then V.P. Jain and his staff the then posted there can verify the documents. My statement was not recorded by the police nor my signature were obtained on any document and nothing was seized in my presence.
Said PW31 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP but it was of no help for the prosecution as said PW31 denied to have made any such Police statement Mark PW31/A to the IO. Said PW31 in the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel further added as under: "I am not aware about the handwriting of accused Narender Kumar Jain nor I can identify his handwriting as he has never worked under me. The Anti Corruption Branch told me about the registration of the case against Narender Kumar Jain. I had no person knowledge about the grounds on which the case was registered."
21. From the perusal of the material as available on the record, it is clearly established that none of the PW as examined by the C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 21 of 26 prosecution during trial has deposed to the effect that it is this accused who has made overwriting/alteration on the FPS Number as found mentioned on the back side of any Pay Order/Draft as deposited by any FPS Holder for release of any Specified Food Articles. Even the FSL Report which is Ex.PW30/A do not substantiate the said allegation of the prosecution as against the accused as said FSL Report Ex.PW30/A concluded as under: "The person who wrote red enclosed writings stamped and marked S1 to S7, S9, S12 to S14 and A1 to All also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q7/1, Q9, Q10."
From the perusal of the record, it is clearly reflected that the questioned writings Mark Q7/1 as found on the back side of Banker's Cheque Ex.PW10/A1, questioned writings Mark Q9 as found on the back side of Banker's Cheque Ex.PW8/A and questioned writings Mark Q10 as found on the back side of the Banker's Cheque Ex.PW8/B do not relate to any overwriting/cutting/alteration on any FPS Number as alleged by the prosecution and the entire case of the prosecution emerged out of the basic allegation as against the accused is that he has made cutting/overwriting on the FPS Number on the C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 22 of 26 back side of Banker's Cheque/Draft thereby diverting the Specified Food Articles of FPS Holder who has deposited the Draft amount to other FPS Holder who is not entitled for the same.
22. In view of the aforesaid material as available on record, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the prosecution have miserably failed to establish its case as against the accused.
23. From the perusal of the material available on the record, it is also reflected that the accused being working as a Inspector in the Food & Supply Department, Government of Delhi during the year 1991 was certainly working as a "Public Servant" at the time of the commission of the alleged offence and therefore, Sanction for launching prosecution from the Competent Authority should have been obtained by the IO but from the record it is reflected that no such Sanction has been obtained in this respect. No doubt, from the perusal of the deposition of PW29/Sh. R.K. Chauhan, the then Food & Supply Officer (Vigilance) in the Office of Commissioner Food & Supply, Consumer Affairs, Delhi coupled with Letter Ex.PW29/A, it is reflected that this accused was Compulsory Retired under CCS Rules 1965 w.e.f. 15.04.97. However, it is revealed from the cross C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 23 of 26 examination by Ld. Defence Counsel of said PW29 besides the copy of the Order dated 17.02.99 as passed by Sh. Vijay Kapoor, the then Lieutenant Governor, Delhi that the Order dated 15.04.97 whereby imposing punishment of Compulsory Retirement upon this accused by the Disciplinary Authority and Order dated 30.12.97 whereby rejecting the Appeal against it as passed by the Ld. Appellate Authority were set aside and Penalty of Reduction in Pay by 3 stages in his Time Scale of Pay for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect has been passed by the then Lieutenant Governor, Delhi vide said Order dated 17.02.99 and even said Order dated 17.02.99 of the then Lieutenant Government, Delhi has been set aside and matter was remitted to the Inquiry Officer vide Order dated 09.03.2001 as passed by Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in Original Application No. 487/2000. It is further revealed from the record that thereafter the Disciplinary Authority on reexamination impose the Penalty of Reduction in Pay by 1 stage in the Time Scale of Pay for a period of 2 years without cumulative effect and the Appeal as preferred by the accused against same was also dismissed and therefore, the accused filed the Original Application No. 561/2003 before Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi whereby the Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to accept the said Application of the C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 24 of 26 accused and quash the Impugned Order vide Order dated 19.08.2003 and copy of the said Order is available on the record. In view of the same, it is clearly reflected that the Original Impugned Order dated 15.04.97 as passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby imposing the Punishment of Compulsory Retirement as against this accused w.e.f. 15.04.97 stand set aside. But despite the same, the prosecution has not bothered to obtain the Sanction Order from the Competent Authority for launching prosecution as against this accused as contemplated U/S 19(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and since it has resulted in gross legal infirmity striking at the root of the case of the prosecution, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that this accused also deserve to be acquitted on the said count itself.
24. The requirement of the existence of Sanction cannot be given by mere interpretation to the effect that once cognizance is taken the absence of Sanction become irrelevant. "If cognizance itself cannot be taken in the absence of sanction and taking cognizance of an offence by whatever means cannot justify the existence or absence of Sanction. Infact as strictly speaking if there does not exist any valid Sanction, it cannot be said that the cognizance of offence, was taken by itself, cannot cure the defect C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 25 of 26 in this regard, hence the prosecution of the appellant was vitiated". It was so held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as K.Narsimhachari Vs. State Inspector of Police ACB Cuddapha District 2003 Crl.L.J. 3315.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the prosecution has failed to establish its case as against the accused Narender Kumar Jain and therefore, this accused Narender Kumar Jain is ordered to be acquitted of the charged offence.
Announced in the open court on this 24th day of March, 2012 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC, Delhi C.C. No. 28/12 Page No. 26 of 26