Uttarakhand High Court
Vinay Kumar Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 7 April, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.348 of 2013
Vinay Kumar Singh ...........Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ..........Respondents
With
Criminal Revision No.4 of 2014
Criminal Revision No.8 of 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. B.S. Bhandari, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
These criminal revisions, namely Criminal
Revision No.348 of 2013, Criminal Revision No.04 of 2014
and Criminal Revision No.08 of 2014, arise out of a
common order dated 09.10.2013 passed by the learned
Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Nainital, in
Special Trial No.04 of 2013.
2. Since all the revisions emanate from the same
set of facts, involve common questions of law and challenge
the same order of cognizance, they are being decided
together by this common judgment.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the
prosecution case arises out of alleged financial
irregularities in the execution of flood relief works during
the year 1992-1993 in District-Almora. On the basis of an
enquiry report indicating misappropriation of government
funds and irregularities in execution of works, an FIR being
Crime No.2 of 1993 was registered under Sections 409,
420, 467, 167, 196, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read
1
with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
4. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR,
investigation was conducted by the C.B.C.I.D., and after
completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be
submitted against the accused persons, including the
present revisionists. The learned Special Judge (Prevention
of Corruption Act), Nainital, upon consideration of the
material on record, took cognizance of the offences and
summoned the accused persons vide order dated
09.10.2013, which is under challenge in the present
revisions.
Criminal Revision No. 348 of 2013 (Vinay Kumar Singh)
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
revisionist that the revisionist who was Junior Engineer
during relevant period, has been falsely implicated in the
present case without there being any cogent material to
connect him with the alleged offences. It is submitted that
the charge-sheet has been filed merely on the basis of
assumptions and conjectures without any independent
technical verification of the work allegedly executed. It is
further argued that no specific role has been attributed to
the revisionist demonstrating any dishonest intention or
misappropriation of government funds.
6. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel
for the revisionist that the sanction necessary to initiate the
prosecution as per the mandate of Section 19 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was refused by the
Government vide order dated 22.04.2014 which makes the
entire proceeding void ab initio and non est in law.
7. It is also contended that the investigation suffers
2
from serious procedural irregularities and that the learned
court below has taken cognizance in a mechanical manner
without proper application of judicial mind. The impugned
order, therefore, is liable to be set aside.
Criminal Revision No. 04 of 2014 (Hari Singh & others)
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that
the revisionists have been implicated solely on the basis of
an enquiry report, which itself is vitiated by non-
consideration of relevant material and absence of proper
verification. It is contended that the revisionists had limited
or no role in the execution of the alleged works and that no
material exists to establish their complicity in the alleged
offences. It is further submitted that the investigation has
been conducted in a perfunctory manner and the charge-
sheet does not disclose any prima facie offence against the
revisionists. The order of cognizance is stated to be illegal,
arbitrary and liable to be quashed.
Criminal Revision No. 08 of 2014 (Prem Prakash Singh)
9. It is contended that the revisionist who was a
Junior Engineer had a very limited role in the execution of
works and was assigned only a few work orders, whereas
the majority of work orders were assigned to other officials.
It is submitted that the work was in fact executed by the
contractor and there is no material to show any
misappropriation or wrongful gain on the part of the
revisionist.
10. It is further contended that even in the
departmental enquiry, the revisionist was not found guilty
of the alleged charges and, therefore, continuation of
criminal proceedings is unjustified. It is also argued that
the impugned order has been passed without due
3
application of mind and without considering the material
on record, and is therefore liable to be set aside.
11. It is further vehemently argued that no sanction
to prosecute as required under Section 19 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988, was granted from the Competent
Authority in State and therefore the entire prosecution fails
on the sole ground.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has
opposed the revisions and submitted that the impugned
order has been passed after due consideration of the
material collected during investigation. It is contended that
the enquiry report, coupled with the material gathered
during investigation, clearly discloses commission of
cognizable offences and establishes a prima facie case
against the revisionists. It is further submitted that at the
stage of cognizance, the court is only required to examine
whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the
accused and not to conduct a detailed appreciation of
evidence. The submissions raised on behalf of the
revisionists pertain to disputed questions of fact, which can
only be adjudicated during trial.
13. It is also contended that the learned court below
has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in taking cognizance
and summoning the accused persons, and no illegality or
perversity is made out warranting interference in revisional
jurisdiction. But there is no denial so far as refusal of
sanction to prosecute is concerned in respect of
Government Servants-Vinay Kumar Singh and Prem
Prakash Singh.
14. I have considered the rival submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the material available on record particularly the
4
refusal of sanction to prosecute dated 22.04.2014 as
required under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. This Court is of the considered opinion that the case
of State falls flat to its face and the entire proceedings are
void, therefore, without going into the merits of the case
this Court allows the Criminal Revision Nos.08 of 2014 and
348 of 2013. With respect to Criminal Revision No.04 of
2014 this Court is of the view that the revisionist deserves
leniency on the grounds of parity as the co-accused viz
Vinay Kumar Singh, Prem Prakash Singh could not be
prosecuted as sanctioned required under Section 19 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was refused on the
grounds of prolonged trial of about 22 years. The same
principle applies to revisionist of Criminal Revision No.04 of
2014 as well as they are also facing the same trial for 22
years and it will be just and equitable to release them on
the same grounds as are available to Vinay Kumar Singh
and Prem Prakash Singh.
15. This Court is also of the view that the
prolongation of a criminal case for an unreasonable period
is itself a kind of suffering. It amounts to mental
incarceration for the person facing such proceedings. In the
present day system of administration of justice in which
proceedings have often go on protracted unreasonably and
therefore unbearably, the passage of long time itself makes
the person suffer a mental agony, therefore, this Court
allows the criminal revision.
16. Let the Trial Court Record be sent back to the
Lower Court for compliance.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
07.04.2026
SK+
5
[ad_1]
Source link
