The Allahabad High Court has refused to stay the criminal proceedings against woman jail warden who got a job through fake sports certificate in the jail warden recruitment scam of 2005.
A Single Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh passed this order while hearing an application under Section 482 filed by Sanyog Lata.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings including the charge-sheet dated 27.12.2022 and cognizance/summoning order dated 23.01.2023 of Criminal Case under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)d read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, PS Jagdishpura, District Agar, pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act), Meerut.
It has been argued by the counsel for the applicant that the allegations levelled against applicant, are wholly false and that no prime case is made out against applicant. The impugned charge-sheet and proceedings are nothing but abuse of the process of court. The allegations levelled against the applicant that while applying for the post of jail warden, she has submitted a false sport certificate is wholly false.
Further, no benefit has been availed by the applicant on the basis of said certificate in her recruitment as Jail Warden.
It is further submitted that at the time of applying for the post of Jail Warden, the applicant was not a public servant and thus, the provisions of Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act are not attracted against the applicant. The applicant was terminated from the said post of Jail warden and she has already challenged the said order of termination before the Court by filing a writ petition, which is pending. The proceedings of recovery, initiated against the applicant, have already been stayed by the Court.
It was also pointed out that the provisions of Section 13(1)d of Prevention of Corruption Act have been repealed by way of Amendment Act of 2018 and thus, applicants can not be prosecuted for the said offence.
A.G.A has opposed the application and argued that there is allegation against the applicant that while applying for the post of Jail Warden, she has submitted a forged sport certificate.
During investigation, it was found that at the relevant time, the applicant was not studying in the institution, from which the alleged sport certificate was shown to be issued. Referring to the allegations made in the first information report and material collected during investigation, it was submitted that a prima facie case is made out against the applicant.
The Court observed that in the year 2005-06 recruitment of Jail Wardens (Bandi Rakshak) for Central Jail, Agra was conducted. On complaints regarding corruption in the said recruitment, an inquiry was conducted by the Vigilance department of police. Ambrish Gaur, the then Senior Superintendent Jail was chairman of the selection committee and R.N Pandey, V.S Mukund, V.K Gupta and Dr. N.K Yadav were members of the said committee. In said recruitment, several candidates, including applicant-accused, were selected against the posts of Jail Wardens.
The Court further observed that the applicant-accused and several other selected candidates were posted as Jail Warden and they have worked for several years as such. In the inquiry conducted by the Vigilance, it was found that various acts of forgery, tampering with records of examination and acts of corruption were committed during the process. Several serious irregularities found in the examination process and interview. The records were tempered by over-writing and cuttings. It was also found several candidates have filed forged documents while applying against the said posts. On the basis of the inquiry report, the first information report was lodged on 11.02.2015. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant-accused and co-accused persons. The Trial Court took cognizance and summoned the applicant-accused and co accused persons for offences under sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120- B IPC and Section 13(1)d read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act vide impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 23.01.2023.
One of the contention raised by the counsel for the applicant-accused is that at the time of alleged recruitment process or at the time applying for said post, the applicant-accused was not a public servant and that there is absolutely no allegation so as to attract provision of section 13(1)d/13(2) of P.C Act.
“Thus, it is apparent from the provisions of section 13 P.C. Act that these provisions have to be applied against a public servant. Though in certain cases a non public servant involved in conspiracy of misconduct with the public servant accused, the issue may be different but in the instant case there is no evidence to show that at the time of alleged incident, the applicant was public servant or that she has indulged in any of the mischief as stated in section 13 (1)(d), 13(2) of P.C Act. There is no material to show that the applicant was involved in conspiracy with a public servant/accused. The allegation against the applicant-accused is that while applying for the post of Jail Warden, she has submitted a forged sports certificate and the chairman and members of the recruitment committee have indulged in misconduct, tempering of record and irregularities in the said recruitment process. No such specific allegation could be shown that after her posting as Jail Warden, she by corrupt or illegal means, obtained for herself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage or by abusing her position as a public servant. The allegation against the applicant-accused is that while applying for the post of Jail Warden, she has submitted a forged sports certificate.
In view of aforesaid, no prima facie case section 13(1)d/13(2) of P.C Act is made out against the applicant-accused. It appears that the Trial Court did not consider the issue in correct perspective and committed error by summoning the applicant-accused for offence under section 13(1)d/13(2) of P.C Act.
After considering arguments raised by the counsel for parties and perusing the first information report and the materials in support of the same, it is apparent that no case for quashing of entire proceedings is made out, but as stated-above, no prima facie case under Section 13(1)d read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the applicant, hence, the impugned summoning order requires interference to this extent.
In view aforesaid, the prayer for quashing of entire proceedings is refused”, the Court also observed while disposing the application.