ARVIND KUMAR CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order No. 01-05/PD-EK/313(1)/228, dated 05.02.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Executive Director (Human Resources) Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Raipur whereby sanction to prosecute the petitioner under the provisions of section 13(1) (e) and section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') has been granted and the corrigendum No. 01-05/PD- EK/313 (1)/522 dated 06.03.2010 (Annexure P/2), addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau/Economic Offence Investigation Bureau, communicating the information of grant of sanction to prosecute the petitioner.

(2.) The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner was the employee of the then Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') working on the post of Assistant Engineer. After bifurcation of the Board, five new companies were formed and the petitioner's services came under respondent No. 2 i.e. Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited. On 28.8.2000, the respondent No. 4 made a search in the premises of the petitioner, wherein it was allegedly found that the petitioner had acquired property worth Rs. 44,09,000/- which is disproportionate to his income, and an offence under section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 sought permission from the Board to prosecute the petitioner for the aforesaid offences but the same was denied. However, the relevant papers were sent to the Chartered Accountant of the Board and after obtaining opinion in this regard, the sanction to prosecute was again refused. The respondent No. 2, vide communication dated 06.03.2009, again refused to grant sanction for prosecuting the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on several earlier occasions, sanction to prosecute the petitioner was denied which is evident from letter dated 16.12.2005, 20.07.2005, 31.03.2003, 02.01.2004, 31.03.2003. However, at the instance of respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 2 and 3 acted illegally by granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The impugned order is un-sustainable. Shri Sharma would further submit that the prosecution agency cannot become persecuting agency and cannot force any other agency to grant sanction. Further, the respondent No. 2 and 3 authority, when it had once been decided not to grant sanction for prosecuting the petitioner, cannot review its own order and grant sanction for prosecuting the petitioner as there is no change in any of the circumstances except the undue pressure of the respondent No. 4.