CHANDRESH SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present revision petition, filed under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order dated 18/10/2016 passed by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Durg in Criminal Case No. 3/09, whereby the petitioner's application under Section 19 sub-Section 4 of the Prevention of the Atrocities Act, 1988 has been rejected.

(2.) By the said application, the petitioner prayed that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner be dropped and he be discharged as there is no valid and proper sanction for prosecution of the petitioner for alleged commission of offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1988.

(3.) On the allegation of the complainant that the petitioner is demanding a bribe of Rs. 5000/- towards passing of a favourable order in favour of the complainant, a trap was arranged by Anti Corruption Bureau. According to the case of prosecution, in the trap arranged, Rs. 5000/- were recovered from under the table of the petitioner and when his hands were washed in the solution of Phenolphthalein, it prima facie indicated that the petitioner handled the tainted notes. The Anti Corruption Bureau, after completion of the trap proceedings, carried investigation and filed charge-sheet against the petitioner, on the allegation of having committed offence as described above. The Anti Corruption Bureau, thereafter sought sanction for prosecution which was granted vide order dated 17/07/2009 by the Law and Legislative Affairs Department of the State of Chhattisgarh. With the said sanction for prosecution, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. When the petitioner moved an application for examination of all the witnesses of the prosecution, who had passed the order of sanction, the Additional Secretary, Department of law and the Secretary, Department of Revenue were examined. However, the petitioner's application under Section 19(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for his discharge on the ground that the sanction is not valid and proper, was rejected by the impugned order.