JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by the instant criminal revision under sections 397 and 401 of the Cr. P. C. has questioned the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 18. 3. 2008 passed in special Case No. 2/04 whereby learned Special judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, bilaspur has rejected the application questioning validity of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner.

(2.) FROM perusal of the impugned order it appears that the petitioner filed an application before the Special Court questioning the validity of sanction for prosecution. The said application was rejected by the Special court vide order dated 27. 11. 2004 with an observation that the objection raised by the applicant relating to validity of sanction was pre-mature since the trial had not concluded and the grounds challenging the validity of sanction could be considered at the time of judgment. The petitioner's Criminal revision No. 54/05 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 15. 9. 2006, the order of Special judge was set aside and the Special Judge was directed to decide the question regarding validity of sanction after giving an opportunity to the prosecution to adduce evidence relating to the materials which form basis for grant of sanction by the sanctioning authority. After passing of the order dated 15. 9. 2006 the evidence of authority sanctioning prosecution was recorded and thereafter objection of the petitioner against the sanction for prosecution was rejected vide impugned order. From perusal of the impugned order it also appears that both the parties have closed their evidence and the matter was fixed for final hearing.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that sanctioning authority has accorded sanction without application of his mind and the sanction has been granted without examining the documents of case. On the request of the respondent the sanctioning authority mechanically added a figure of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the order of sanction without referring to the documents. He also ignored the discrepancy regarding amount demanded by the petitioner in the two complaints which clearly show that it is the case of false implication. Further referring to paragraph No. 13 of the deposition of the sanctioning authority before Court, it was argued that sanction was accorded only on the basis of complaint of Ex. P-1 without application of mind and without considering the explanation of the petitioner-accused. Relying upon the judgment in the matter of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat it was argued that validity of sanction depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also to the material and evidence collected during investigation. Sanctioning Authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. His mind should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take a decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. Further relying upon the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of P. K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim it is argued that it is well settled that question of sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P. C. can be raised at any time after the cognizance; may be immediately after cognizance or framing of charge or even at the time of conclusion of trial and after conviction as well.