DILIP KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The crisp question involved in this matter is, whether the sanctioning authority has power and jurisdiction to review its order in the matter of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act of 1988') for offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and an order passed refusing sanction to prosecute under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 can be reviewed?

(2.) The afore-stated question has to be unlocked in the following factual backdrop, which states as follows: -

(3.) Return has been filed by the State/respondents No. 1 to 3 as well as by respondents No. 4 and 5 opposing the writ petition stating inter alia that previously, the order was passed on incorrect premises, as Crime No. 15/2015 relates to Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988, whereas Crime No. 9/2015 relates to Sections 11, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and also Sections 109, 120-B, 420 and 409 of the IPC, therefore, the Managing Director had committed error which was sought to be rectified subsequently by the sanctioning authority and sanction for prosecution has rightly been granted on 17-5-2017, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.