NEELAM BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the impugned order the instant revision has been filed by the applicant herein by which her application for discharge has been rejected by the Special Judge under the' Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 henceforth 'the Act, 1988'..

(2.) The applicant was charge-sheeted by the State of Chhattisgarh through Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bilaspur for offence under Sections 7, 131.d. and 132. of the Act, 1988 with a charge that on 22.09.2012 while working as a resident doctor in the Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences, Bilaspur henceforth 'the CIMS'. she demanded Rs. 1,500/- from complainant Prahalad and accepted cash of Rs. 1,300/- from him in the CIMS for treatment and giving medicine to the son of complainant Prahalad and on a complaint made she was trapped by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. It is further case of the prosecution that she was dismissed from the service on 22.09.2012/24.09.2012 and, therefore, sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Act, 1988 is not required.

(3.) Upon filing the charge-sheet the present applicant filed and application for discharge stating inter alia that previous sanction under Section 19 of the Act, 1988 is necessary for her prosecution. It was further stated that no Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 131. d. and 132. of the Act, 1988 without previous sanction of the State Government as she was a duly appointed doctor by the CIMS. The aforesaid application was opposed by the non-applicant/State stating inter alia that she was already dismissed from the service by the Dean of the CIMS on 22.09.2012. The learned Special Judge by the impugned order rejected the application holding that the services of the applicant had already been dismissed by the competent authority on 24.09.2012 and thereafter the cognizance of the offence was taken up on filing the charge-sheet on 24.09.2012, therefore, the previous sanction under Section 19 of the Act, 1988 is not necessary.