ORDER
S.L. Kochar, J.
1. All these revisions shall dispose of by this common order because all are involving almost all same facts and law.
2. The applicants have filed these revisions against the order dated 7-2-2002 whereby the learned Trial Court has framed the charge against the applicants under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter for brevity called as 'the Act').
3. The Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta), Indore has filed a charge-sheet against the applicant alleging that he had sanctioned the map for constructing building upto the height of 15 mtrs. whereas according to the Corporation Rule he could pass the map or sanction the map only for construction of building upto the height of 12 mtrs. In Criminal Revision No. 336/2002 and Criminal Revision No. 339/2002, the charges were that the applicant has granted sanction for construction of building on the land of Wakf Board without granting sanction by Town and Country Planning Department for construction of multi-purpose complex. By passing such map illegally, they benefited the concerned party and also misused their power as a public servant or granted sanction by corrupt or illegal means. In all the four Criminal Revisions of the applicants the charges are the same but the sanction granted to different persons. The learned Court below, after considering the submissions of the applicant, dismissed their prayer.
4. Before this Court in these revisions, the only point has been argued on behalf of the applicants that merely illegal exercise of power would not be sufficient to prosecute a public servant for the charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Gowardhan Das v. State of M.P., [2002(1) MPLJ 154] in which it is held that mere illegal exercise of jurisdiction by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority is not sufficient to warrant inference of corruption and in absence of any further evidence, it can not be a ground for prosecuting the concerned authority on any criminal charge of corruption in view of the protection given by Section 402 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.
5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for State has submitted that the applicant did not act as a judicial or quasi judicial authority. Therefore, the judgment rendered by this Court in Gowardhandas's case (supra), is not helpful to the applicants. In this case, the matter was against the Appellate Committee appointed by the corporation under Section 403 Sub- section (3) of the Act and that Appellate Authority was discharging the function of judicial or quasi judicial authority. Therefore, against passing of any illegal order, the inference can not be drawn for prosecuting the members of the Committee and other accused persons with the help of Section 120B of IPC or under the offences of the Act.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for parties and after perusing the record, it is crystal clear that the applicants were not acting as judicial or quasi judicial authority. They were serving as Engineer in the Municipal Corporation, Indore. They were not having power to sanction the map for more than 12 mtrs. height and also were not having power to grant sanction for construction of multi purpose complex on the land of Wakf Board without sanction by Town and Country Planning Department. It could not be said that it was their bonafide mistake. They were the Senior Officers and according to the prosecution, knowing well, they have sanctioned the map. Therefore, presumption can be raised that they had misused their official duty and power and on the basis of illegal and corrupt practice, sanctioned the map in favour of the beneficiaries.
7. The learned Counsel for parties have apprised this Court that in all these cases, trial has commenced and four material witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court. In this view of the matter and discussion on the fact and law as aforesaid, this Court is of the view that no interference is called for in the impugned order of framing charge by the Trial Court. Therefore, all these revisions fail and are hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made by this Court in this order shall not affect on the merit and demerit of the case which will be decided by the Trial Court after recording of the evidence and any observation shall not be considered in favour or against either side.
8. The revisions stand dismissed.
9. A copy of this order be placed in the record of connected Criminal Revision Nos. 323/2002, 336/2002 and 339/2002.