BASANAGOUDA Vs. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petitions are filed seeking for quashing of the communication dated 10/6/2013 in No. ZPK/Magaragraukhayo/CR/2013 -2014 and consequently, to quash the charge sheet in No. 103/2013 dated 16/6/2013 in crime No. 45/10 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, so far as the present petitioner is concerned. The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are: that according to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Sericulture Demonstrator by the Director of Sericulture. In the month of October 2009, the petitioner was deputed on OOD to Gram Panchayat, Kandakoor, to work as a Secretary. The police have registered a FIR against the then Secretary, Mr. Sarangamath and others, alleging misappropriation of public funds. At that time, there was no complaint against this petitioner on the ground that, he was not working during that period. The departmental enquiry was initiated against then Secretary. The then Secretary was admitted the guilt and paid the entire amount. Thereafter, the first respondent police have filed a charge sheet alleging misappropriation against the petitioner and others. It is contended that, the sanction order issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Koppal, is neither from the competent authority nor it complies other legal requirements. Therefore, the charge sheet field on the basis of such sanction order required to be quashed.

(2.) PER contra, the learned Addl. Additional State Public Prosecutor, strenuously submitted that the police have investigated the matter and deleted the name of accused Khajabi W/o Murtusab, S.S. Sarangamath and Gaviyappa Y. Kattimani and filed a charge sheet against the present petitioner along with other three accused persons.

(3.) NOW coming to the arguments of the learned Counsel, the sanction order was issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Koppal. He has drawn my attention that the petitioner was appointed by the Director of Sericulture and not by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Koppal. The parental department is the Sericulture Department and CED Zilla Panchayat, Koppal, ought not to have issued the sanction order. Secondly, he contended that the sanction order does not disclose any examination of case papers, application of mind by the sanctioning authority forming an opinion that there is a prima facie material against the petitioner to accord the sanction. Therefore, the said sanction order is illegal, it does not comply with illegal requirement, as such whole subsequent proceeding shall fall to the ground. In this regard, of course, it is worth to note here that sanctioning authority while according the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. shall apply its mind to the materials on record. It is worth to note here the decision reported in : 1996 SC 722 in State of Maharashtra and others this Vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalapatri and others.