STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. NISHANT SAREEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The question raised in this appeal, by special leave, is as regards the extent of power vested in the Government in reviewing its order granting or refusing sanction to prosecute the public servant in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the 1988 Act).

(3.) Nishant Sareen--the Respondent--was posted as Drug Inspector, Bilaspur (Himachal Pradesh) in 2005. One, Dr. Ramdhan Sharma, owner of Leelawati Hospital, Ghumarwin lodged a complaint against the Respondent in the Vigilance Department of the State Government that the Respondent had demanded Rs. 5,000/- from him as bribe to allow him to run the said hospital without checking by the Drug Inspector. Based on the said complaint, a first information report (being No. 1/2005) was registered under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the 1988 Act at Police Station AC Zone, Bilaspur. Thereafter, a raiding party under the supervision of Deputy Superintendent of Police, AC Zone, Bilaspur was constituted and a trap was laid on May 12, 2005. The Respondent is said to have been caught red-handed on that day accepting the bribe from the complainant. The Respondent was arrested and produced before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin and was remanded to judicial custody upto May 16, 2005. The Respondent was released on bail later on. Upon completion of investigation, the Vigilance Department sought for sanction under Section 19 of the 1988 Act from the Government to prosecute the Respondent. It is not in dispute that the Principal Secretary (Health), Government of Himachal Pradesh is the competent authority authorized under the Rules of Business for according sanction in the matter.