S.RUDRA MURTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dtd. 16/1/2019 passed in CBI Case No.04/2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge of Special Court for trial of CBI cases), Raipur (C.G.), whereby the learned Court below has rejected the application of the applicant seeking direction for production of documents and note-sheet from the office of Sanctioning Authority.

(2.) The applicant is facing special criminal trial before Special Judge, C.B.I., under Ss. 7 and 13 (2) r/w sec. 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). Before the trial Court, the applicant filed an application under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking direction for production of documents and note-sheet from the office of Sanctioning Authority (Senior Divisional Engineer (Co-ord) East Coast, Railways, (Waltair Division), which was dismissed by the trial Court holding that there exists an opportunity to confront the witness relevant questions at the time of cross-examination related to the prosecution sanction in relation to the documents submitted by the Vigilance Department, East Coast Railway, Bhubneshwar, Orissa. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Court below has not taken into consideration the importance of sanction and the true purport of the protection extended to the Government Servant. The trial Court has also not taken into consideration the fact that the applicant confronted the sanctioning officer with the specific question regarding his competency for grant of sanction for the prosecution of the applicant. He further submits that the purpose of providing previous sanction as pre-requisite before prosecuting a Government Servant is to discourage rivalrous complaints against them and also to encourage the government servant to discharge their duty without any fear and favour, but the trial Court has completely ignored this aspect of the matter and rejected the application without recording any reason whatsoever. He also submits that in this case sanction has been granted in routine manner, which does not disclose the material having been considered before passing such order. The purpose of moving the application for production of the document is based on the fact that the PW/1 has tried to evade the question of non-consideration of the material at the time of grant of sanction. It is next submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to consider that the sanctioning authority was provided the draft sanction order which has been confronted at the time of cross-examination and marked as Ex.D-1, it is most absurd that the prosecution agency who is required to seek a sanction before prosecuting a government servant, has itself proposed the sanction order which ought to be signed by the sanctioning authority, whereas under the law, a duty has been enjoined upon the sanctioning authority to apply its mind and balance the public interest on the one hand and protection available to the accused on the other hand. He also submits that the Court below has wrongly rejected the application only on the ground that the Court has to see the documents relied upon by the prosecution only. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court's order dtd. 19/7/2017 passed in CRR No. 704/2017 (Mahaveer Chandrakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh),