K K VASHISHTH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 15-5-2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.1 in exercise of power conferred under Section 19(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the PC Act') read with Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the CrPC') granting sanction for prosecution against him for offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Sections 120B & 420 of the IPC.

(2.) Essential facts in order to adjudicate the aforesaid challenge levied by the petitioner are as under: -

(3.) The Chhattisgarh State Economic Crime Bureau and Anti Corruption Bureau registered an offence under Crime No.42/1996 against the petitioner and other persons for offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Sections 120B & 420 of the IPC and sought sanction from respondent No.1 for prosecution against the petitioner herein and other persons under Section 19(1)(b) of the PC Act and Section 197 of the CrPC in which respondent No.1 Department of Law & Legislative Affairs by memo dated 22-3-2019 sought comments from the Administrative Department i.e. the Secretary, Department of Water Resources, State of Chhattisgarh respondent No.2 herein and reiterated by memo dated 25-4-2019, but, comments were not received from the said respondent Department upon which sanction for prosecution was granted on 15-5-2019 by the State Respondent respondent No.1 herein. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that as per the circular dated 21-4-1997 issued by the Department of General Administration of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, the Department of Law & Legislative Affairs shall obtain opinion of the Department concerned before granting sanction and in case of conflict between the two Departments, the matter shall be referred to the Sub-Committee of the Cabinet. It is the further case of the petitioner that in this case, the Administrative Department of the petitioner i.e. the Water Resources Department, by memo dated 16-5-2019 (Annexure P-1) has already conveyed its disagreement for grant of sanction for prosecution against the petitioner, however, sanction for prosecution has been granted by respondent No.1 Principal Secretary, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, whereas, the matter ought to have been placed for consideration before the Sub-Committee of the Cabinet as provided in the circular dated 21-4-1997 (page 44 of the writ petition) and in absence of that, sanction granted is vitiated and as such, the order granting sanction against the petitioner is unsustainable and bad in law and deserves to be quashed.