SHUBHASHISH SARKAR Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Sec. 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner calling under question the order dtd. 07/10/2024 passed in Special Criminal Case No.03/2021 by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) & 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 19 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been rejected.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner has been prosecuted in connection with the FIR No. 17/2020 dtd. 1/5/2020 registered at Police Station ACB/EOW, Raipur (CG) for offence under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has filed charge sheet before the Special Court and on the basis of the same the learned Special Court has framed the charges against the petitioner under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner being a public servant has agreed to receive undue benefit of Rs.1,02,000.00 in three installments from the complainant Neeraj Singh Thakur in lieu of payment of bill amount regarding cleanliness of Raipur Railway Colony in the performance of public duty and on 30/04/2020 he took thirty thousand rupees out of the said amount and obtained undue benefit. The case is pending trial before the Court below.

(3.) During pendency of the trial, the petitioner moved an application under Sec. 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for discharge on the ground that PW-5 Dr. Joy Barla is not a competent authority with regard to grant of sanction for prosecution against the petitioner and the petitioner further has contended that the sanction Ex.P/23 has been issued by PW-5 under Sec. 19(1)(c) of the Act, for which, the authority first had to be competent to remove the accused from his office, however, the PW-5 has stated that he is not appropriate authority and also stated that the appropriate authority in the case is Senior Divisional Personnel Officer.