Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(2), 13(1)(e) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 109 – Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 8(3) – Suspension of conviction/ sentence -- High Court overturned the acquittal and has convicted the appellant for three years – Appellant who is a MLA will incur disqualification as a result of the conviction -- High Court has not considered the main question whether the view taken by the Special Court was a possible view -- Conviction and sentence suspended. Afjal Ansari’s case (2024) 2 SCC 187 relied.

(Para 2-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 409, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 120-B -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(a), 13(2) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Corruption case – Anticipatory bail – Since the petitioners have returned 50% of the compensation amount and have also declared their assets, based on which, State can always avail legal remedies for attachment of assets as well as recovery of the amount, to which the State is entitled, it is not a case for pre-trial incarceration of the petitioners – Petition allowed and interim order made absolute.

(Para 6)

A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19 -- Corruption case – Sanction for prosecution – Validity of -- Stages of proceedings at which an accused could raise the issue with regard to the validity of the sanction would be the stage when the Court takes cognizance of the offence, the stage when the charge is to be framed by the Court or at the stage when the trial is complete i.e., at the stage of final arguments in the trial -- Such issue of course, could be raised before the Court in appeal, revision or confirmation, however the powers of such court would be subject to sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the said Act.

(Para 10)

B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19 -- Corruption case – Sanction for prosecution – Validity of -- Competence of the court trying the accused would be dependent upon the existence of the validity of sanction, and therefore it is always desirable to raise the issue of validity of sanction at the earliest point of time -- In case the sanction is found to be invalid, the trial court can discharge the accused and relegate the parties to a stage where the competent authority may grant a fresh sanction for the prosecution in accordance with the law.

(Para 10)

C. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19 -- Corruption case – Sanction for prosecution from Superior authority – Validity of – Challenge to -- Special Judge, while dismissing the third application filed by the respondent seeking discharge after examination of 17 witnesses by the prosecution, specifically held that the sanction accorded by the government which was a superior authority to the Karnataka Water Supply Board, of which the respondent was an employee, was proper and valid -- Such findings recorded by the Special Judge could not have been and should not have been reversed or altered by the High Court in the petition filed by the respondent challenging the said order of the Special Judge, in view of the specific bar contained in sub-section (3) of Section 19, and that too without recording any opinion as to how a failure of justice had in fact been occasioned to the respondent-accused as contemplated in the said sub-section (3).

(Para 14)

D. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227 -- Corruption case – Sanction for prosecution -- Discharge of accused -- Interlocutory application seeking discharge in the midst of trial would not be maintainable -- Once the cognizance was taken by the Special Judge and the charge was framed against the accused, the trial could neither have been stayed nor scuttled in the midst of it in view of Section 19(3) of the said Act -- Issue of validity of sanction was raised at the earlier point of time, the same was not pressed for -- Only stage open to the accused in that situation was to raise the said issue at the final arguments in the trial in accordance with law.

(Para 15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(c), 25, 29 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Regular bail on parity – More FIRs pending – Effect of -- State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that petitioner is involved in number of FIRs -- However, State is not in a position to distinguish the case of the petitioner qua the co-accused so far as grant of bail is concerned – Without commenting on the merits of the case, on the basis of parity of petitioner vis-a-vis co-accused, the petitioner granted bail.

(Para 5)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 17A (as amended by the Act of 2018) – Enquiry/ Inquiry/ investigation of offences -- Complaints against Panchayat officers/ Sarpanch -- Whether the protection under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the initiation of enquiry or inquiry or investigation without the previous approval of the competent authority is omnibus, universal and absolute so as to take within its sweep all the offences triable under the 1988 Act?”

-- Sufficient amount of fund under the various schemes is provided to the gram panchayats which is required to be spent under the overall guidance of the officials of the Rural Panchayat and Development Department -- In order to ensure that the funds are spent on the development and growth of the village, it is necessary to provide proper checks and balances – Office bearers who are covered by the definition of the public servants are required to be protected from the false complaints, however, at the same time, there is a requirement to bring transparency in use of the public funds -- In these circumstances, such public servants cannot be given a special privilege unless so intended by the Statute.

Writ petitions dismissed with the liberty to the petitioners to take all the objections before the Vigilance Bureau or before the trial Court.

(Para 31)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3), 173(2)(i), 190, 200, 202 – Submission of Final report – Role of Magistrate -- Magistrate may either:

(1) accept the report and take cognizance of offence and issue process,

(2) may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or may take cognizance on the basis of report/material submitted by the investigation officer,

(3) may direct further investigation under Section 156(3) and require police to make a report as per Section 173(8) of the CrPC.

(4) may treat the protest complaint as a complaint, and proceed under Sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC.

(Para 49)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173(2)(i), 173(8) – Final Police Report -- Further investigation – Delay -- Mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial and effective justice.

(Para 50)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173(2), 173(8), 190(1) -- Final Police Report – Cognizance by Magistrate -- Further investigation – Power of police -- Sub section (8) of Section 173 of the CrPC permits further investigation, and even dehors any direction from the court, it is open to the police to conduct proper investigation, even after the court takes cognizance of any offence on the strength of a police report earlier submitted.

(Para 64)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173(2), 173(8), 190(1) -- Final Police Report – Acceptance by Magistrate – Further investigation – Double jeopardy – Hearing to accused -- There is no bar against conducting further investigation u/s 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted u/s 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted:

-- Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed.

-- Further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation, hence it cannot be said that the accused are being subjected to investigation twice over. Moreover, investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment so as to fall within the ambit of Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution. The principle of double jeopardy would, therefore, not be applicable to further investigation.

-- There is nothing in the CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.

(Para 64-77)

E. Precedents – High Court order -- Contrary view from co-ordinate Bench – Sequitur is to make a reference to a larger Bench on papers – Ground of Per incuriam – While it is open to a learned Judge to differ with a view of a Co-ordinate Bench the sequitur is to make a reference to a larger Bench on papers being placed before the learned Chief Justice -- The learned Judge cannot simply say "with due respect, I do not agree to the ratio..." or “the decision is per incuriam as a binding judgment of the Supreme Court has not been considered….” and proceed to take a contrary view as done in the impugned order -- Such an approach would result in conflicting opinions of Co-ordinate Benches, resulting in judicial chaos and is, thus, improper -- This is something atrocious and unacceptable.

(Para 24, 81)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173(2), 173(8), Section 173(2), 173(8) -- Further investigation after long lapse of time -- It is settled law that the criminal offence is considered as a wrong against the State and the Society even though it has been committed against an individual -- Normally, in serious offences, prosecution is launched by the State and a Court of law has no power to throw away prosecution solely on the ground of delay -- Mere delay in approaching a Court of law would not by itself afford a ground for dismissing the case -- Though it may be a relevant circumstance in reaching a final verdict -- Assurance of a fair trial is to be the first imperative in the dispensation of justice.

(Para 84-86)

G. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(e), 17 – Criminal misconduct by public servant -- Investigation by police – Consent order from Superintendent of police or and higher officer in rank – Nature of -- A superior police officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police or any officer higher in rank is required to pass an order before an investigation, if any, for such offence is commenced -- Before directing such investigation, the Superintendent of Police or an officer superior to him is required to apply his mind to the information and come to an opinion that the investigation on such allegations is necessary.

(Para 88)

A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 464 -- Failure to frame charge u/s 7 of PC Act -- Appellant had clearly understood the prosecution case about the first alleged demand made and the subsequent alleged demand and acceptance – This is a case of omission to frame a proper charge, and whatever charge has been framed is, per se defective -- However, by reason of the said omission or defect, the accused was not prejudiced insofar as his right to defend is concerned -- Therefore, the omission to frame charge and/or error in framing charge is not fatal.

(Para 15)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 464 -- Failure to Frame a Proper Charge – Omission to frame a charge or any error in charge is never fatal unless, in the opinion of the Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.

(Para 15)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Corruption case – Regular bail -- Though, the involvement of the petitioner prima facie evident having been caught in a trap while accepting bribe, but Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner has been behind bars for the last more than 3 months -- Conclusion of trial is likely to consume time since, none out of the cited 12 PWs has been examined so far – Bail allowed.

(Para 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) – Leave to appeal -- Granting of special leave to appeal against acquittal is a discretionary power.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 452, 506, 166, 167 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 12 -- Rape -- Cancellation report in FIR –  Ld. JMIC dismissed the complaint -- Leave to appeal -- Applicant/ prosecutrix was alleged to be raped on 07.01.2016 and 10.02.2016 – She opted to remain silent after alleged incident of 07.01.2016 and approached police on 10.02.2016 i.e. after second incident -- There is gap of one month between first incident and second incident -- Applicant attempted to implicate police officials who did not agree with her complaint -- MLR was not supporting the case of the applicant -- No injury was found over the body of the applicant -- Complainant/applicant failed to make out prima facie case warranting summoning of alleged accused – There is no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order whereby trial Court has dismissed the complaint -- Permission for special leave to appeal rejected.

(Para 7, 8)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 7 and 13(1) (b), 13(2) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Corruption case -- Regular bail – Illegal gratification of Rs. 7,000/- for entering inheritance mutation – Though investigation is complete conclusion of the trial is likely to take time; moreso, sanction to prosecute u/s 19 of the Act is still awaited; no recovery is to be made from the petitioner and he volunteers to give his voice sample, the petitioner granted bail.

(Para 1-5)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19, 21(b), 27, 29, 59(2) – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 7, 13 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 341, 394 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Bribe for nor registering case -- Regular bail -- Accused proclaiming themselves to be Incharge of STF Punjab police, recovered 5 grams of Heroin from one Bhullar, kept the contraband and accepted the bribe of Rs.19,000/- for not registering the case – Considering that co-accused were granted bail by the Court, the petitioner is in custody since 7.7.2022, conclusion of trial is likely to take time, sanction to prosecute has not been received, the petitioner being a police official prima-facie there is no chance of his absconding, bail granted to the petitioner.

(Para 6)

Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part I, Chapter VII, Rule 7.3 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13(2) – Conviction in criminal case – Dismissal from service – Re-instatement after conviction set aside – Pay and allowances for dismissal period -- No departmental proceedings were initiated against him – Petitioner held entitled, disputed period to be treated as duty period with all consequential benefits -- Arrears of salary etc. for the said period be released to the petitioner, within a period of three months failing which, the amount due shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum till payment.

(Para 8-11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3), 197 -- Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. -- Quashing of -- Cognizance by court – Power of – Nature of -- Even at the stage of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., while directing an investigation, there has to be an application of mind by the Magistrate -- Court concerned cannot act in a mechanical and mindless manner -- Application of mind should be reflected in the order -- Mere statement, that he (Presiding Officer) has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant as reflected in the impugned order will not be sufficient and on this sole ground the impugned order being vitiated, deserves to be set aside.

(Para 26)

B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 8, 11, 12, 13(1)d, 13(2), 15, 19 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Corruption case -- Cognizance by Magistrate/ Special court -- Sanction from Government – Requirement of – Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. by impugned order – Quashing of -- Held, no Court can take congnizance of offences punishable u/s 7, 11, 13 and 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the public servants without previous sanction of the concerned Government --  Order directing investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be passed in the absence of a valid sanction u/s 19 of the Act, 1988 -- No such previous sanction/approval has been sought by the complainant to prosecute the petitioners -- Consequently, the impugned order being illegal set aside qua the petitioners.

(Para 21, 25, 27)

C. Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Money Laundering case -- Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. by impugned order – Quashing of -- Held, police cannot investigate offences punishable u/s 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act unless specifically authorized by the Central Government in this regard -- Further, the police cannot take cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act unless specifically authorized by the Central Government by general or a special order -- Respondent No.2 failed to produce copy of any such general or special order passed by the Central Government -- Impugned order being illegal set aside qua the petitioners.

(Para 21, 22)

D. Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (41 of 1963), Section 3, 6, 12 – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (8 of 1975), Section 3, 10,11, 12 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) –Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. by impugned order – Quashing of -- Sanction is required to prosecute the public servants under various provisions of Haryana Development and Regulations of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 – No such previous sanction/ approval has been sought by the complainant to prosecute the petitioners -- Consequently, the impugned order being illegal is hereby set aside qua the petitioners.

(Para 21, 27, 28)

E. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981), Section 21,22, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43 -- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986), Section 11,15, 16,17, 19, 25 -- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974), Section 20, 32, 33, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 45-A, 46, 47, 48, 49 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Cognizance by Court – Power of -- Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. by impugned order – Quashing of -- No Court can take cognizance of offences punishable under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; the Environment (Protection) Act 1986; the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1974 except on a complaint made by a Board or any officer authorized in this behalf -- No prior notice was issued by respondent No.2 to prosecute the petitioners as required -- Impugned order being illegal set aside qua the petitioners.

(Para 21, 22, 27)

F. Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (16 of 1994), Section 250, 251, 260, 265, 309, 310, 380, 382, 384 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Cognizance by court – Power of -- Court cannot take cognizance of offences under Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 except on the complaint made by the competent authority.

(Para 21)

A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19 – Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (45 of 2003), Section 8(1)(f) -- Sanction of prosecution of public servant – Accountability of -- Accountability has three essential constituent dimensions. (i) responsibility, (ii) answerability and (iii) enforceability -- Responsibility requires the identification of duties and performance obligations of individuals in authority and with authorities -- Answerability requires reasoned decision-making so that those affected by their decisions, including the public, are aware of the same -- Enforceability requires appropriate corrective and remedial action against lack of responsibility and accountability to be taken -- Responsibility for grant of sanction for prosecution of a public servant u/s Section 19 of the PC Act is always vested in the appointing authority -- Identification of appointing authority is always clear and straightforward -- The 2018 amendment in fact, evidences legislative incorporation of answerability, the second constituent of accountability -- For enforceability, Parliament has expressly empowered the Central Vigilance Commission under Section 8(1)(f) of the CVC Act to review the progress of the applications pending with the competent authorities, and this function must take within its sweep the power to deal with the consequences of failure of the competent authority to comply with its statutory duty.

(Para 33-36)

B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19 – Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (45 of 2003), Section 8(1)(f) -- Sanction of prosecution of public servant – Non-compliance of -- Upon expiry of the three months and the additional one-month period, the aggrieved party, be it the complainant, accused or victim, would be entitled to approach the concerned writ court to seek appropriate remedies, including directions for action on the request for sanction and for the corrective measure on accountability that the sanctioning authority bears – Period of three months, extended by one more month for legal consultation, is mandatory -- Consequence of non-compliance with this mandatory requirement shall not be quashing of the criminal proceeding for that very reason -- Competent authority shall be Accountable for the delay and be subject to judicial review and administrative action by the CVC under Section 8(1)(f) of the CVC Act.

(Para 37, 38)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 7, 13 (1)(a)(ii) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cheating and corruption case – Regular bail -- Petitioners are in custody since 16.12.2021 -- Considering that the investigation is complete, challan stands presented, petitioners volunteer to give their specimen signatures, conclusion of trial is likely to take time, the petitioners are granted bail.

(Para 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 20(b), 29, 68Y – Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894), Section 42-A -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(b) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Supply of drugs in jail – Regular bail -- Co-accused used to supply narcotic drugs to the petitioner (DSP Jail) at jail and he used to supply such like contraband to some of the prisoners in the jail – 110 grams of charas has allegedly been recovered from the petitioner along with 11 sim cards -- Petitioner has also been booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act for collecting the illegal money from the prisoners so as to extend them various facilities in the jail -- Considering the fact that the petitioner is custody since 23.07.2020 and there is no other case under the NDPS Act pending against the petitioner, coupled with the fact that trial in the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, as only challan has been presented and charge has yet not been framed in the case so far, this Court deems it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.

(Para 6)

A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) -- Corruption matter -- Recovery of currency notes -- Mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused -- To prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe -- Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence -- Even the presumption u/s 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. C.M. Girish Babu’s case (2009) 3 SCC 779 and B. Jayaraj’s case (2014) 13 SCC 55.

(Para 12)

B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 232, 378 -- Acquittal by trial court – Conviction by High Court – Possible view of Trial court – Interference in -- Initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court -- Acquittal recorded by the trial court is a “possible view” as such the judgment of the High Court is fit to be set aside -- Before recording conviction under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, courts have to take utmost care in scanning the evidence – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment of conviction set aside.

(Para 12, 13)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 221 -- Criminal case – Departmental proceedings – Stay of -- Merely because the departmental proceedings and criminal trial are on same allegations does not ipso facto result in stay of departmental proceedings.

(Para 6)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 7, 8, 10, 13(1)(d), 13(2) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Corruption case -- Bailable warrants – Anticipatory bail -- For the last over three years, the petitioner has undisputedly joined investigation and cooperated -- His arrest was not considered necessary at any point of time during this long period of investigation -- Petitioner has since retired from service, hence would not be in a position to tamper with the evidence -- Respondents did not require his judicial custody till date – Direction given that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be admitted to bail by the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer on furnishing a personal bond.

(Para 10, 11)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A & 120B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Corruption case -- Application u/s 482 by third party to expedite criminal trial – Locus standi – Maintainability of – High Court directed trial court to expedite the criminal trial -- Held, respondent no. 2 (third party) has no locus to file application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to expedite the hearing in criminal trial -- Application was not clearly maintainable -- Impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.

(Para 2-4, 15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 406, 417, 420, 465, 468, 471, 476 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 8, 9 – Corruption case – Anticipatory bail – Many officials of the Nigam, nominated as accused in the FIR on the basis of documentary evidence are regularly attending the office after registration of FIR -- With respect to the disputed quantum of contract work executed by the firm of the petitioner, an Arbitrator has already been appointed by High Court – No cogent and convincing reason has been brought-forth as to why the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required -- Petition allowed and interim order made absolute subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

(Para 5-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)D, 13(2) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail -- Challan presented and even the FIR was registered after holding a preliminary enquiry -- Petitioner is already a retired employee and hence, cannot temper with any record, which is already in the possession of the police -- No useful purpose will be served in keeping the petitioner behind the bars any further as the trial is likely to take some time -- Petitioner has made out a case for the grant of benefit of regular bail -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), 19 – Offence under IPC and PC Act -- Sanction under PC Act not forthcoming – Effect of -- Charge against the petitioner for offence punishable under the IPC can continue irrespective of the fact that sanction in respect of offence punishable under PC Act is not forthcoming.

(Para 2, 3)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 222, 223 -- Demand of bribe – Disproportionate assets – Two F.I.R. – Clubbing of -- First FIR was registered on account of demanding a bribe and when a trap was laid down, he was caught red handed while accepting the said bribe -- Subsequent to the first FIR, when the official residence was searched, a huge amount in cash and certain documents regarding disproportionate assets were found in possession of the petitioner, qua which the second FIR was registered – Held, both the FIRs are based on different set of allegations and cannot be clubbed or tried together.

(Para 14)

A. Constitution of India, Article 311 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13 -- Acquittal in F.I.R. – Departmental proceedings on allegations, which were subject matter of FIR – Enquiry officer fallen in error and actually shows the intention of the authorities not to initiate the departmental enquiry against the petitioner for any other allegation except the allegations which were subject matter of FIR -- After the evidence has been examined by the trial court and it has recorded its findings acquitting the petitioner, the observations in the enquiry report clearly amounts to re-appreciation of evidence.

(Para 10,11)

B. Constitution of India, Article 311 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13 -- Acquittal in F.I.R. -- Suspension period of an employee – Submission that during the pendency of the criminal case, where employee is acquitted, should be deemed to be on duty for all intents and purposes – Punishment orders quashed, respondents are directed to consequently, re-fix the pay of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

(Para 14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 205 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 9, 12, 13 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B, 420, 409 – Exemption from personal appearance of accused -- Appellant is appearing before the learned Trial Court on each and every Friday since 2013 -- Appellant is a permanent resident of Delhi and is the Director on the Boards of several companies -- Distance between Delhi and Hyderabad is approximately 1500 kms – Normal rule is that the evidence shall be taken in the presence of the accused, however, even in the absence of the accused, such evidence can be taken but then his counsel must be present in the court -- Nothing is on record that, at any point of time, any effort has been made by the appellant to stall/delay the trial -- Exemption on the very same grounds of two co-accused in cases arising of the same FIR have been allowed, one by High Court, another by Trial Court – Personal appearance of the petitioner dispensed with conditions. Bhaskar Industries Ltd.’s case (2001) 7 SCC 401 relied.

(Para 6,7)