ANAND PANDEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dtd. 1/10/2022 passed by the Special Judge (PC Act), Bilaspur, in Special Session Case (PC Act) No.2/2022, whereby the application preferred by the applicant under Sec. 227 of the CrPC read with Sec. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018 (hereinafter called as 'PC Act') has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was posted as Assistant Project Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission (S.S.A.), Bilaspur. On the basis of preliminary enquiry, FIR for disproportionate assets bearing Crime No.34/2016 for offence under Sec. 13(1)(e) read with Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act was registered against him and during the investigation, the prosecuting agency has obtained sanction vide order dtd. 18/7/2018 (Annexure P-2). From perusal of sanction order, it appears that total income was ascertained to the tune of Rs.3,66,85,562.00 and expenditure for the check period was determined to the tune of Rs.9,11,93,537.00, thereby disproportionate assets was accumulated by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.5,45,07,975.00, which is 148.58% in excess and disproportionate to the income. So, the applicant has filed writ petition bearing WPCR No.138 of 2018, in which by order dtd. 24/7/2018 this Court directed respondents No.3 and 4 therein to consider on the explanation given by the applicant in Form No.1, 2 and 3 and to also consider on any other representation to be made by him in future by allowing him to make additional submission or to produce additional documents. Upon such direction, the prosecuting agency / Anti Corruption Bureau has re-investigated the matter and found income to the tune of Rs.10,63,49,856.00 and expenses for the check period to the tune of Rs.15,67,04,698.00, thereby disproportionate assets was accumulated by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.5,03,54,842.00. After reinvestigation the matter was again referred to sanctioning authority and sanctioning authority vide order dtd. 15/12/2021 (Annexure P-4) stated that as the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the applicant was found in excess of more than 10% of disproportionate assets for the check period i.e. 47.43% and as earlier sanction order has already been issued on 18/7/2018, so no fresh sanction is needed and accordingly, such communication was made to the prosecuting agency.

(3.) Mr.Ashutosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, would submit that under Sec. 19 of the PC Act the investigating agency has put-forth the amount and other details after reinvestigation before the sanctioning authority. In spite of such request, the sanctioning authority has not granted fresh sanction. Therefore, there is no valid sanction for the charges for offence under Sec. 13(1)(e) read with Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act. So, he prays to set aside the impugned order and direct the concerned Court to allow the application filed by the applicant under Sec. 227 of the CrPC. He placed reliance in the matters of Nanzappa v. State of Karnataka reported in 2015 ACR 717, Mohmad Iqbal Ahmad v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1979 (SC) 677 and Dilip Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh and others [W.P.(CR) No.355/2017.