KAILASHNATH PHULJHELE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being invoked against the order dated 05.01.2018, whereby an application with a caption under Rule 27 of the C.G. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam 1995 (for short 'the Niyam, 1995') has been dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being criminally prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for an alleged bribe given to him. It is stated that on the date of the incident, the petitioner was under the deputation to Election Commission, which would be evident from the document Annexure P-5 dated 20.01.1998, wherein at serial No.17 (3) it would show that the petitioner was appointed on deputation. Subsequently, in terms of Section 28A of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (for short 'the Act, 1951'), the State government was denuded of his power to grant sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. He further submits that under the circumstances, when the application was filed to quash the proceeding before the Court below, the Court below was bound to go into it and look into the fact as to whether on the date of sanction, the petitioner was whether was under the control of State Government or the Election Commission. He further submits that as per the document, the document would show that the petitioner being under the deputation of Election Commission as per the law laid down in the matter of Umesh Singh Yadav Vs. Collector/District Returning Officer, Balaghat and others (1992 M.P.L.J. 173), the State authorities could not have granted permission for sanction.