Kuldeep Singh Virdi vs Union Of India Thru.Secy.Home Affairs New Delhi.And Anr.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 961 of 2019
Kuldeep Singh Virdi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Union Of India Thru.Secy.Home Affairs New
Delhi.And Anr.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dr.Krishna Singh, Shubhi Guha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : A.S.G., Aakash Prasad, Bireshwar Nath

Court No. - 13
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Case called out.
2. Heard Dr. Krishna Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Aakash Prasad, alongwith Sri Yash Joshi and Mr. Yajush Pandey,
learned counsel for the respondent-CBI.
3. Sri Aakash Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has filed an
affidavit of service, which is taken on record.
4. Dr. Krishna Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, prays for
adjournment of the case to enable him to file a rejoinder affidavit.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent-CBI has opposed this request
and he has submitted that a counter affidavit was filed way back on
03.02.2026, after serving its copy on the learned counsel for the petitioner
on 29.01.2026.
6. The matter was taken up by a coordinate Bench of this Court on
22.10.2026, on which date the following order was passed:
“ 1. On the basis of urgency mentioned in the morning by Mr. Akash
Prasad, learned Special Counsel for the CBI, the case is taken up. He
informed that repeated phone calls were made to Dr. Krishna Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant, but the calls went unanswered. A
WhatsApp message was also sent, to which he has not responded.
2. He further submitted that on 07.02.2019, the following order was

A482 No. 961 of 2019
2
passed:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet is
submitted against the petitioner accused who is a retired Government
Servant on 28.09.2018. Before the service of the said charge sheet on
26.07.2018, Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was
amended. In view of the amendment, even against a retired Government
Officer, permission was required to be taken as per Section 19 of the
P.C. Act. Prima facie the case for consideration is made out.
In view thereof, Sri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel for C.?.?. prays for
and is granted two weeks time to file reply, one week thereafter, to file
rejoinder affidavit for the petitioner.
List on 11.03.2019.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the
petitioner."
3. Learned Special Counsel submitted that the issue in question has
already been addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Telangana v. Managipet @ Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy, (2019)
19 SCC 87, which was subsequently followed by this Court in Dr. Syed
Fareed Haider Rizvi v. CBI thru. S.P./A.C.B., Lucknow, 2022 SCC
OnLine All 784. He submitted that if the offence was committed prior to
the amendment dated 26.07.2018 in the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, the amended provision will not be applicable. He further informed
that in the present case, the alleged incident took place between 2007
and 2010, whereas the applicant retired on 30.06.2009; therefore, the
amendment to Section 19 of the PC Act is not applicable to the case of
the applicant.
4. List this case on 30.10.2026 among the top ten cases.
5. The interim order granted earlier shall continue till the next date of
listing. However, in case learned counsel for the applicant fails to assist
the Court on the next date, the interim order shall stand vacated
automatically.
6. Mr. Akash Prasad, learned Special Counsel, undertakes to inform
learned counsel for the applicant about this order in writing.”
7. In these circumstances, I do not find it proper to adjourn the hearing of
the case pending since 11.01.2019 and the request for adjournment is
turned down. I proceed to hear the submissions of the learned Counsel for
the parties.
8. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of a charge-sheet
dated 28.09.2018 filed by CBI in furtherance of FIR bearing no.

A482 No. 961 of 2019
3
RC0062014A0008 dated 21.02.2014 for offences under Section 120-B
read with Sections 409, 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section
13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
9. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on
21.02.2014 against (1) the then Chief Development Officer of the District
Balrampur, (2) the then Project Director, DRDA, District Balrampur, (3)
unknown officer/officials of UP Government, (4) Unknown suppliers of
items, and (5) other unknown persons, in compliance of an order dated
31.01.2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 12802 (M/B) of
2011 filed by Sri Sachchidanand Gupta, directing the Central Bureau of
Investigation to investigate the abuse and misappropriation of funds as
well as the abuse of power under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'MGNREGA')
with regard to seven districts of the State of UP, namely, Balrampur,
Gonda, Mahoba, Sonbhadra, Sant Kabir Nagar, Mirzapur, and
Kushinagar, during the years 2007 to 2010, with appropriate action and
prosecution in accordance with law.
10. The FIR states that during the period 2007-08 and 2008-09, large
scale financial bungling, gross irregularities and misappropriation of
MGNREGA funds was made in District Balrampur by the then BDOs and
other government officer/officials in connivance with the private suppliers
in the centralized purchase of stationery and other items worth Rs.
1,81,18,602/- on exorbitant rates by the then Chief Development Officer,
Project Director, DRDA and other officers of district Balrampur in
connivance with private suppliers and thereby huge wrongful pecuniary
loss was caused to the government exchequer, which make out
commission of offences under Sections 120B read with Sections 409, 420
IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
11. The applicant was not named in the FIR. However, his name was
included in the charge-sheet dated 28.09.2018, which was filed against
four persons. Regarding the applicant, the charge-sheet states that in
furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, without any information in the
public domain, the Uttar Pradesh Small Industries Corporation Ltd.

A482 No. 961 of 2019
4
(hereinafter referred to as ‘UPSIC’) Area Office Allahabad issued letters
number 521, 523 and 524 dated 24.10.2007 to the District
Magistrate/Chief Development Officer, Balrampur seeking supply orders
of First Aid Boxes, Tent, Servantpal (chholdari) and Water Tanks under
MGNREGA.
12. These letters were issued under the signatures of the applicant K.D.
Singh, Area Manager, UPSIC, Area Office Allahabad and carried to
Balrampur by Athar Pervez. Sri Sachidanand Dubey, D.M. Balrampur
endorsed the letters to Hariprasad Tiwari, Chief Development Officer
(hereinafter referred to as ‘CDO’), who marked the same to Project
Director Sri Bhagwati Prasad Verma, and he, in turn, marked the same to
Mahmood Alam, Yojana Sahayak. The applicant had issued supply orders
dated 28.10.2008 to M/s AP Industries owned/operated by Athar Parvez
and the petitioner had released the payment to AP Industries, after
deducting 5% centage, service tax and TDS. The applicant had sent a
letter dated 29.10.2007 to the Area Manager UPSIC Agra, Moradabad,
Lucknow and Kanpur and had sought rates of First Aid Boxes, Tent,
Servantpal (chholdari) and Water Tanks. The letter was shown to have
been displayed at the notice board of the Area Office UPSIC Allahabad,
but response of any of the area managers was not present or mentioned in
the file, and competitive rates were not obtained from the market before
placing the supply orders to M/s AP Industries Kanpur.
13. The charge-sheet further states that the investigation revealed that the
applicant had issued supply order dated 27.10.2008 to M/s Sita
Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur which was owned/operated by Athar
Parvez. It could not be ascertained as to what medicines were kept in the
supplied first aid boxes, and no bill of purchase of medicines was
available in the file. It could also not be clarified as to why UPSIC
supplied only 490 water tanks as against the supply order of 667 water
tanks. A technical team estimated the price of first aid box to be a
maximum of Rs. 500/- per box and, thus, a loss was caused to the
government in purchase of first aid boxes. The documents seized in
search of M/s Sita Fabricators revealed that the firm had procured water
tanks from M/s Satish Chandra and Sons Kanpur at Rs. 490/- per sintex
water tanks (490 sintex) which were supplied to DRDA Balrampur at the

A482 No. 961 of 2019
5
rate of Rs. 875/- per piece.
14. The CBI has filed a counter affidavit opposing the petition, after
serving its copy upon the learned counsel for the petitioner on 29.01.2026,
but the petitioner did not file any rejoinder affidavit. It has inter alia been
stated in the counter affidavit filed by the CBI that the petitioner himself
had issued letters for making the supplies under MNREGA scheme under
his signatures as regional Manager, U.P. Small Industries Development
Corporation and one such letter dated 01.01.2008 has been annexed at
page 29 of the counter affidavit. The letter dated 27.10.2007 (annexed at
page 63 of the petition), has also been issued by the petitioner, although
describing him as Area Manager, Allahabad and prima facie it appears
that both the letters dated 15.01.2008 issued by Area Manager Kanpur
and dated 01.01.2008 issued by the Regional Manager, Kanpur, have been
signed by the same person.
15. Dr. Krishna Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the charge-sheet itself mentions that Athar Pervez had submitted a
bill dated 08.03.2008 for Rs. 51,52,050/- to UPSIC Kanpur. Payment of
Rs. 47,73,687/- was released to M/s Sita Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. by UPSIC
Area Office Kanpur. This payment was approved by Sri Sanjeev Tiwari,
Area Manager UPSIC Area Office Kanpur. He submitted that the
petitioner was posted as Area Manager UPSIC Allahabad and not Kanpur.
He has drawn attention to a supply order dated 27.10.2007 annexed at
page No. 63 of the petition, which has been issued by the petitioner in the
capacity of Area Manager Allahabad and another supply order dated
15.01.2008, which is available at page 71 of the paper book, which has
been issued by Sri Sanjeev Kumar, Area Manager, Kanpur. He has also
invited attention of the Court to an order dated 28.09.2000 issued by the
Managing Director UPSIC, providing that Sri Sanjeev Kumar, Manager
(Hire Purchase) would also look after the work of in-charge Regional
Manager.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the
petitioner was working as a Deputy Manager UPSIC and not as Area
Manager. He retired on 30.06.2009. The FIR was lodged on 21.02.2014,
the charge-sheet was filed on 28.09.2018 and the trial court took

A482 No. 961 of 2019
6
cognizance of the offences on 08.10.2018. He has submitted that sanction
for prosecution of the petitioner, as mandated by Section 19 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has not been obtained and, therefore,
the trial cannot proceed against him.
17. Per contra , Sri Aakash Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondent-
CBI, has submitted that the offences in question were committed during
the years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The petitioner retired on 30.06.2009. The
FIR was lodged on 21.02.2014. The charge-sheet was filed on 28.09.2018
and the trial court took cognizance of the offences on 18.10.2018. At the
time of commission of the alleged offences in the year 2007-08 and 2008-
09, the petitioner was a public servant, but he ceased to be a public
servant upon his retirement on 30.06.2009 and he was not a public servant
when the FIR was lodged on 21.02.2014, when the charge-sheet was filed
on 28.09.2018 and when the trial court took cognizance of the offences on
18.10.2018. He has submitted that Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, as it stood on the date of commission of the offences in
the year 2007-09, does not require a prior sanction for prosecution of a
retired public servant.
18. Sri Aakash Prasad has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Mangipet : (2019) 19
SCC 87, wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that where the FIR was
registered on 09.11.2011, much before the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 was amended in the year 2018, the Act as it existed prior to the
amendment carried out on 26.07.2018 would apply.
19. The learned counsel for the respondent CBI has placed reliance on a
judgment rendered by a coordinate bench of this court in Dr. Syed Farid
: (2022 SCC Online All 784), in which case the CBI
Haider Rizvi v. CBI
had lodged an FIR on 21.02.2014, a charge-sheet was filed on
15.11.2018, the questions before this court were: -
“ (I) whether when the CBI or any other agency undertakes
investigation of an offence in compliance of the judgment and order
passed by the Constitutional Court (High Court/Supreme Court) and
the role of public servant comes as an accused for committing
offence under the PC Act, sanction under Section 19 PC Act from the
competent authority for prosecuting such public servant would be
sine-qua-none before taking cognizance by the Court?

A482 No. 961 of 2019
7
(II) Whether the Amending provisions of Section 19 PC Act would
have prospective effect that is to say offence allegedly committed
after 26.07.2018 or the Amending Act would be applicable in respect
of the offence which was allegedly committed before 26.07.2018?”
20. This Court answered the questions as follows: -
“ 18. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that where
the investigation of an offence has been entrusted to the CBI
pursuant to the order passed by the Constitutional Court and role of
a public servant comes as an accused for committing such an
offence, no prior sanction under Section 19 PC Act would be
required for prosecuting such a public servant.
19. The relevant date for applicability of law in respect of a crime
would be the date of commission of the crime. Subsequent
amendment in the statute would not govern the investigation and
prosecution of an accused for an offence which was committed
before the Amendment in the statute came into force.”
21. Prior to its amendment in 2018, Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act 1988 provided that no court shall take cognizance of
an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to
have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous
sanction of the authority competent to remove him from his office. The
phrase “public servant” in Section 2(c) of the Act includes persons in
service only, and not persons who have been ceased to be in
employment. However, Section 19 was amended with effect from
27.06.2018 and an explanation was added in Section 19(1) of the Act,
which reads that: -

“ Explanation- For the purpose of sub-Section (1), the
expression “public servant” includes such person-
(a) who has ceased to hold the office during which offence is
alleged to have been committed; or
(b) who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is
alleged to have been committed and is holding an office other
than the office during which the offence is alleged to have been
committed.”
22. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
amended provision was in force on the date of submission of the charge-
sheet i.e. 28.09.2018 and the date on which the trial court took cognizance
of the offences, i.e. 18.10.2018. He has place reliance on a judgment
rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Anil Kumar Shukla
2019 SCC OnLine
@ A.K. Shukla v. Central Bureau of Investigation:
All 7223 wherein it was held that the requirement of sanction under

A482 No. 961 of 2019
8
amended Section 19(1) is triggered by the date of taking cognizance and
not the date of commission of offence or the date of submission of
charge-sheet.
23. However, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of , was not placed before the Coordinate Bench
Mangipet (supra)
deciding the case of Dr. Anil Kumar Shukla and, therefore, being in
conflict with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Mangipet (supra), this court cannot follow the judgment in the case of
(supra) and is bound by the law by the Hon'ble
Dr. Anil Kumar Shukla
Supreme Court in the case of Mangipet (supra), which view has also
been taken by the Coordinate Bench deciding the case of
Dr. Syed Farid
Haider Rizvi (supra), which also arose from the same set of incidents as
is apparent from the narration made in paragraph 2 of the judgment in the
case of Dr. Syed Farid Haider Rizvi (supra): -
2. This application under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal
“
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "CrPC") has been
filed, impugning the order dated 13.12.2018, issuing non-bailable
warrants of arrest against the applicant in connection with Criminal
Case No.1968 of 2018 (CBI Vs. Sachidanand Dubey and others)
under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420 and 409 Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC") and Sections 13(2)
read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "PC Act"), pending in the Court
of learned Special Judge, CBI, Court No. 2, Lucknow, arising out of
Crime No. RC0062014A0008 lodged at Police Station CBI/ACB,
Lucknow.”

24. Therefore, I find no force in the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the amended Act would apply as it has come into
existence on the date of taking cognizance and I am of the view that
the law existing on the date of commission of the offence and lodging
of the FIR, which was the unamended Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, would govern the field. As per the unamended law, as the
petitioner had retired long before lodging of the FIR and on the said
date he was not a public servant, there was no need for obtaining
sanction of his prosecution.
25. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the
petitioner is not named in the FIR. This is not at all a relevant
consideration for quashing a chargesheet filed against a person, if his
involvement comes to light during investigation.

A482 No. 961 of 2019
9
26. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the
petitioner is an old and ailing person and the court should have mercy
upon him.
27. Old age and medical condition of an accused person may be relevant
considerations for deciding an application for his enlargement on bail, but
this cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings.
28. Accordingly, I find no force in any of the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner. There appears to be no illegality in the order
impugned dated 08.10.2018 passed by the trial court taking cognizance of
the offences and summoning the petitioner to face the trial. The petition
lacks merit and the same is .
dismissed
29. In case the petitioner appears before the trial court and seeks his
release on bail, his bail application shall be considered sympathetically
and expeditiously in accordance with law, particularly the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil:
(2022) 10 SCC 51.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
October 30, 2026
A.Nigam
Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes.
Whether the judgment is reportable: No.
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANUJ NIGAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench