PUSHYAMITRA MISHRA AND ORS. Vs. C.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant No.1 at the relevant time was working as a Regional Officer in Central Regional Office AICT Bhopal on deputation and the applicant No.2 at that time was working as an Associate Professor in Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal. The applicant No.1 had allegedly sent ineligible members including applicant No.2 with the team of expert committee for the purpose of inspection, whereas the applicant No.2 is alleged to have obtained huge illegal gratification from the private educational institute to extend favour in the inspection as a member of expert committee and consequently both are facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) & 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as PC Act) and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as 'IPC').

(2.) The Director (Dr. Appu Kuttan K.K.), Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal being authority competent to remove the applicants by its order dated 22.11.2012 granted sanction for prosecution against the applicants under Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) On 15.04.2014 Dr. Appu Kuttan K.K. - Director, MANIT Bhopal sanctioning authority was examined as prosecution witness No.1. Immediately thereafter, applicants moved an application under Section 19 of the PC Act before the Special Judge, CBI, Raipur stating inter alia that the sanctioning authority has now been examined and he has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to grant of sanction. It has further been stated that the statement of the said witness would show that the order granting sanction has been passed without due application of mind as draft sanction order was forwarded by CBI to the said sanctioning authority and none of the relevant documents were produced before the said authority. It was also pleaded that said prosecution witness has candidly admitted the factum of his incompetence to grant sanction against the present applicants for the alleged offences and relied upon paragraphs 8,10,12,13,14,19 & 21 of his statement to claim that there is no valid sanction order to prosecute the applicants for the aforesaid offences and therefore the application be allowed and prosecution against the applicants be dropped in the interest of justice.