Avinash Chandra vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Challenging the order dated 5.3.2014 passed by Special Additional Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bhopal in special case no.7/2013, framing charges against the petitioners for offences punishable under section 120-B and 468 of IPC read with section 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, this writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

On complaint made with regard to regularisation of the employees working in the organisation in question, a detailed inquiry has been conducted and on the basis of evidence that came on record, the petitioners who were members of selection committee which recommended for the regularisation are being prosecuted. The aforesaid regularisation in question is said to have taken place in the establishment of Narmada Valley Development Authority in accordance with the scheme formulated by the State Government, after the judgment was rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1].

It is the case of petitioners in this petition that in the matter of regularisation of daily wage employees, including that of one Subhash Dubey''s they have only recommended the name of Subhas Dubey on the basis of policy formulated by the State Government based on scrutiny of official record. The allegations levelled against them are not correct and they were prosecuted ignoring various documents and the policy for regularisation which shows that the regularisation was proper and the prosecution unsustainable.

However Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for Lokayukta Organisation raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Shri Pankaj Dubey pointed out that against same order dated 5.3.2014 Anexure P-1 impugned in this writ petition when the charges were framed, petitioners approached this Court by filing criminal revision bearing Cr.R.No.574/2014 under section 387 of Cr.P.C., and in the said revision petition framing of charges was challenged on the same grounds as are being canvassed now in this writ petition. These were considered by a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No.574/2014 and by a detailed order passed on 29.1.2015 Annexure P-7 the criminal revision has been dismissed and in fact identical grounds raised for quashing of the charges as are raised in this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was rejected in the said criminal revision. After the order Annexure P-7 was passed on 29.1.2015 in Cr. R. No.574/204 petitioners filed special leave to appeal (Crl.) No. 3761/2015 and vide order Annexure P-8 dated 11.5.2015 passed by Hon''ble the Supreme Court goes to indicate that the case was dismissed as withdrawn without any liberty or reservation being indicated in the said order. Shri Dubey therefore argued that once petitioners have already taken recourse to the alternative remedy of approaching this Court by filing criminal revision and after the revision was dismissed a Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court is also dismissed as withdrawn, without any liberty, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable.

Shri Sharma, learned counsel for petitioners invited our attention to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India and others, [(2011) 10 SCC 543] to say that framing of charges are not proper and a judgment of Delhi High Court passed on 29.3.2011 in W.P.(Crl.) No.80/2010, Shri Anur Kumar Jain v. Central Bureau of Investigation to say that against an order passed by a criminal Court in the matter of framing of charges under Prevention of Corruption Act, a criminal revision is not maintainable and therefore the order passed by High Court in Criminal Revision No.574/2014 is a nullity, it should be ignored and the matter proceeded with now in this writ petition.

We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention of petitioners. The criminal revision was filed at the instance of petitioners and the petitioners submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court in criminal revision No.574/2014, invited an adverse order against them, challenged the adverse order by approaching the Supreme Court. The S.L.P., filed was also dismissed and now cannot turn around and say the aforesaid order passed on 29.1.2015 by the Coordinate Bench in criminal revision is nullity. In view of aforesaid conduct of the petitioners, we see no reason to interfere in this matter, particularly when the Hon''ble Supreme Court has also dismissed the SLP as withdrawn. Even otherwise finding recorded in Criminal revision no.574/2014 also shows that there are material to proceed with the prosecution and we see no reason to take a different view. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners will not apply in this case, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case wherein the petitioners themselves filed criminal revision and thereafter challenged it in the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal and ultimately the Special Leave to Appeal being withdrawn as dismissed, without any reservation or liberty being granted, we cannot interfere in the matter exercising our limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Taking into consideration all the aforesaid, we see no reason to interfere in this matter. The petition is accordingly dismissed.