STATE OF MP Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Cr. Revision by the State has been preferred against an order dated 7.2.2002, passed by the learned Special Judge, Indore, in Special Case No. 16/00, discharging the accused non-applicant from an offence under section 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the Act'). The main contention of the applicant State is that though the accused non-applicant had mentioned in his note sheet that before grant of sanction, permission of Department of Town and Country Planning was necessary but later on he changed the note sheet and put it up in a manner, which enabled the builder to get a sanction for construction of multi storeyed building on the disputed land being a grave yard. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant supports the impugned order and also refers to a decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court reported in JT 1996 (6) SC 480 (P.S. Rajaiya v. State of Bihar). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that the accused non-applicant was exonerated in a departmental enquiry and further he had mentioned in his official note sheet that for the purpose of construction on the land in question, it was necessary to obtain a sanction from the Department of Town and Country Planning. That apart, it also appears that he was not the sanctioning authority and the permission for construction was to be granted by the Building Officer of the Municipal Corporation.

(2.) THUS , on due consideration I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order leading to miscarriage of justice, which calls for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. Further, the plea of the non-applicant appears to be in line with the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court (supra), wherein the Court has laid down the law that the standard of proof in a criminal case is far higher than in a departmental enquiry and, therefore, the criminal proceedings were not worth continuing. The Hon'ble Apex Court accordingly also deprecated the conduct of the Investigating Agency. Hence, the Cr. Revision being devoid of merits is hereby- rejected.