STATE Vs. RAJ KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On May 11, 1988, the Central Burueau of Investigation (CBI), the appellant before us, registered a case against the respondent, who was then a Junior Engineer in the New Delhi Municipal Corporation, under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ('Act' for short) on the allegation that he was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. In the investigation that followed, C.B.I. found that the allegations made against the respondent could not be substantiated and, accordingly, it submitted its report under Section 173(2), Cr. P.C. before the Special Judge, Delhi praying for closure of the case.

(2.) The Special Judge declined to accept the report on the ground that after the investigation was complete, the C.B.I. was required to place the materials collected during investigation before the sanctioning authority and it was for that authority to grant or refuse sanction. According to the Special Judge, it was only with the opinion of the sanctioning authority that the C.B.I. could submit its report under Section 173(2), Cr. P.C. With the above observations the Special Judge issued the following directions:

(3.) Aggrieved by the above directions C.B.I. moved the High Court by filing a revision petition which was dismissed with a finding that the directions issued by the Special Judge were proper and legal. Hence this appeal.