SURESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 19.2.2019 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the PC Act'), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.11 of 2018, whereby the Special Judge has rejected the application/objection raised by the Applicant under Section 19 of the PC Act.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 11.10.1989, the Applicant joined services as a Sub-Engineer in Water Resources Department. At the relevant time, he was posted as an Executive Engineer of the Water Resources Department at Raipur Division No.1. On 20.7.2015, the Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur conducted a raid at the house of the Applicant situated at Professor Colony, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh and in pursuance thereof registered Crime No.37 of 2015 for offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the PC Act and also prepared an inventory. On 21.7.2015, the Anti Corruption Bureau also conducted a search in Morvi Beauti Parlour which belonged to the wife of the Applicant, namely, Anita Pandey. As directed by the Anti Corruption Bureau, the Applicant has submitted details of the properties and assets to the Anti Corruption Bureau. After completion of the investigation, initially, the Anti Corruption Bureau sent a file to the original department of the Applicant, i.e., the Water Resources Department for obtaining sanction for prosecution, but the sanction was not granted by the department. Thereafter, the case was forwarded to the competent authority, i.e., the Law and Legislative Affairs Department for grant of sanction for prosecution. Since there was a difference of opinion between the General Administration Department and the Law and Legislative Affairs Department regarding grant of sanction for prosecution, as per the procedure laid down in circular dated 26.5.2003 issued by the General Administration Department, approval was taken through coordination and thereafter the Law and Legislative Affairs Department granted sanction for prosecution vide order dated 8.9.2017. Since there was a difference of opinion between the General Administration Department and the Law and Legislative Affairs Department, after granting sanction for prosecution by the Law and Legislative Affairs Department, the Applicant moved a representation before the Chief Minister of the State. Vide order dated 15.6.2018, the Chief Minister directed for re-examination of the matter. Thereafter, on 10.12.2018, a charge-sheet has been filed against the Applicant for the alleged offence. Since despite there being a direction of the Chief Minister for re-examination of the matter, without further inquiry or re-examination of the matter and without obtaining a fresh sanction for prosecution, charge- sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the Special Court, the Applicant preferred an application under Section 19 of the PC Act. The said application has been rejected by the Special Court vide the impugned order dated 19.2.2019. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that there was a difference of opinion between the General Administration Department and the Law and Legislative Affairs Department and the sanction has been obtained through coordination. After the sanction, vide order dated 15.6.2018, a direction was issued by the Chief Minister for re-examination of the matter. Thus, it is clear that the order dated 8.9.2017 granting sanction for prosecution was recalled vide the order dated 15.6.2018 passed by the Chief Minister. Therefore, the order dated 8.9.2017 has already been merged into the order dated 15.6.2018 and, therefore, no valid sanction is in existence. Thus, without obtaining a valid sanction for prosecution, the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution on which cognizance has been taken by the Special Court against the Applicant is not sustainable. Therefore, the Special Court has committed a serious error of law in holding that the prosecuting agency has obtained a valid sanction for prosecution of the Applicant.