- (1.) Despite time being granted under the order of the Court dated 7.8.2012, neither learned AGA nor the counsel for the complainant have been able to produce any further material which could be said to have been collected after the order under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was passed on 1.1.2010 which could justify the review of the earlier order of the State Government refusing grant to sanction for prosecution. Sri Umesh Narayan Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the judgment of the High Court in the case of Vijai Bahadur v. State of U.P. and others, 1988 2 AWC 1289, submits that once an order refusing to sanction the prosecution has been passed, the same cannot be reviewed on some material.
(2.) Fact of in short as borne out from the records are as follows. The petitioner before this Court at the relevant time was posted as Assistant Director, Education (Services 1st), Director of Education, U.P., Allahabad. The complainant respondent No. 4 Smt. Sushila Devi at the relevant time was posted in District Library, Banda. She is a member of Scheduled Caste. A complaint was made by Smt. Sushila that her service book and other service records had been taken away by the petitioner during her visit to Banda personally on 15.10.1997. The service record, personal documents and personal records running into 134 pages and two sheets of noting were not returned despite specific letters in that regard having been sent by the complainant. It was further alleged that because of non-return of official documents, she has committed offence. Loss has been caused in the matter of fixation and other benefits to the complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, she lodged the FIR which was registered as case crime No. 91 of 2002, under Section 409 I.P.C. at Police Station Civil Lines, District Allahabad. After investigation, the matter travelled up to the State Government for sanction being granted for the prosecution of the petitioner as she was a Government Servant. The State Government vide order dated 5.9.2005 refused permission for the prosecution, a copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner.
(3.) It may be noticed that the State Government vide order dated 30.1.2002 directed that censor entry be recorded in the character roll of the petitioner qua her being negligent and indisciplined. Not being satisfied, the petitioner filed representation against the order of adverse entry.;