E-Paper
HC turns down plea against FIR
THE ALLAHABAD High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by two assistant development officers and a Gram Panchayat Village Adhikari, challenging an FIR lodged against them for committing irregularities in installation of pump sets in Jalaun. It was alleged that the petitioners Suresh Chandra Shukla and two others issued a false certificate, verifying the installation of 85 pump sets. While only 25 pump sets were installed, the payment was made for all the pump sets.
Pump set irregularities
THE ALLAHABAD High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by two assistant development officers and a Gram Panchayat Village Adhikari, challenging an FIR lodged against them for committing irregularities in installation of pump sets in Jalaun.
It was alleged that the petitioners Suresh Chandra Shukla and two others issued a false certificate, verifying the installation of 85 pump sets. While only 25 pump sets were installed, the payment was made for all the pump sets.
The FIR was lodged at Orai police station, Jalaun, under sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
The fact as mentioned in the petition was that an FIR was lodged in September 2005, against a firm called M/S Rajkot Machinery Stores, with the allegation that the firm had fraudulently received payment from the government, for the supply and installation (under a government scheme) of 85 pump sets. But only 25 pump sets were actually installed. Thus, the firm had received the payment for 60 pump sets which had been installed only on paper. Thereafter, another FIR was lodged in December 2005, against the petitioners, who are government employees, with the allegation that the payment had been made for 60 pump sets. The government suffered loss due to false verification by the petitioners regarding the installation of all the 85 pump sets.
Counsel for the petitioners contended that the second FIR for the same offence could not have been lodged. Further a GO dated July 19, 2005 required sanction from the government prior to lodging of FIR against the government employees.
Thus, in the absence of such a sanction, the impugned FIR was liable to be quashed.
Opposing the petition on behalf of the State, Neeraj Kanta Verma, additional government advocate, submitted that there are four tiers in the Indian legal system, comprising the Constitution, the statutory law, delegated legislation and the government orders.
The settled principle being that whenever two tiers of law collide, the higher authority will prevail. Therefore, a government order could not override the enacted criminal law. He further stated that in the earlier FIR, a charge-sheet had already been submitted and in the FIR against the petitioners, since the names of the accused were different from the ones mentioned in the earlier FIR, there was no double jeopardy and thus no bar. Thus, the petition deserved to be dismissed, he added.
After hearing both side, the court observed, “The second FIR was lodged against different persons. It may ultimately be held or decided by the same court on the report of the investigation. Therefore, there is no question of multiplicity of the investigation. However, we do not find any force in the argument in this respect’’.
After hearing the counsels of the parties, a bench comprising Justice Amitava Lala and Justice Shiv Shankar dismissed the petition.
Sweet shop fined
THE ALLAHABAD High Court has directed M/S Kamdhenu Sweets, Allahabad, to deposit Rs 50,000 and ensure a proper parking lot outside the shop for smooth running of traffic.
The above order was passed by Justice Shiv Kumar Singh on a writ petition filed by M/S Kamdhenu Sweets challenging the notice dated June 3 issued by the Allahabad Nagar Nigam.
