AJAY KUMAR KAWRE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 5.6.2018 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 (henceforth 'the PC Act '), Dakshin Bastar, Dantewada in Special Case No.1 of 2018, whereby the Special Judge has rejected the application submitted by the Applicant under Section 19 of the PC Act.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that at the relevant time, the Applicant had been working as a Range Officer in the Department of Forest, Government of Chhattisgarh at Sukma, District Sukma. On 17.7.2015, an Inspector of the Anti Corruption Bureau registered First Information Report against the Applicant for an offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the PC Act. Thereafter, he obtained a warrant for search of the house of the Applicant situated in Jagdalpur. The search operation was conducted on 20.7.2015. At the time of conducting the search, the properties, which were not belonging to the Applicant and were in exclusive possession of his wife, were also seized by the Respondent. At that time, the Respondent had exceeded his statutory limits and seized and inquired about the private properties of others including one Pravin Masih, who is a distant relative of the Applicant and is an independent businessman. Vide letter dated 4.9.2015, the Respondent, for the first time, asked the Applicant to submit details of his properties. In the aforesaid letter, no check period was mentioned leaving the Applicant helpless and clueless about the details to be provided. The Applicant was collecting proper information for submitting before the Respondent, but the Respondent, without waiting for such details/information/explanation, directly submitted a report before the sanctioning authority for issuance of an order under Section 19 of the PC Act for prosecution of the Applicant. When the Applicant approached the Respondent for submission of details/information/explanation in Forms No.1, 2 and 3, the Respondent did not accept the same stating inter alia that the investigation against the Applicant has been completed. The Applicant was forced to submit the information before the sanctioning authority on 26.5.2016. The sanctioning authority, i.e., the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur issued the sanction for prosecution vide order dated 15.11.2016. A Writ Petition (Criminal) No.331 of 2016 was filed by the Applicant before this Court. Vide order dated 24.8.2017 passed in that writ petition, this Court directed the Respondent to take into consideration all the documents submitted by the Applicant in support of his case and the explanation offered by him before taking any decision with respect to filing of a charge-sheet or a final report, as the case may be. Thereafter, the Applicant submitted a representation in compliance with the order passed by this Court in that writ petition. The Respondent did not obey the orders of this Court nor did he consider the documents submitted by the Applicant regarding separate income of his wife and his distant relatives nor did he care to obtain a fresh sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act and the Respondent, without obtaining a fresh sanction from the sanctioning authority, submitted a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Special Judge on 24.1.2018. Without considering the fact of the sanction order not being final and being under review, the Special Judge took cognizance and commenced trial. The Applicant moved an application under Section 19 of the PC Act which has been rejected by the Special Judge vide the impugned order dated 5.6.2018. Hence, this revision.

(3.) A reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondent stating that since the order passed by the Special Judge under Section 19 of the PC Act is an interlocutory order, the instant revision is not maintainable. It has been further stated that the Applicant did not especially state as to what prejudice has caused to him by not reviewing the sanction order issued by the competent authority because as such there is no change in the investigation conducted in accordance with the order dated 24.8.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.331 of 2016. It has been further stated in the reply that after the order passed by this Court on 24.8.2017, the Applicant submitted his representation on 26.8.2017. After receiving the representation, the Respondent considered the representation without any delay and also considered the documents submitted by him and thereafter issued notices under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the concerned authorities to submit report regarding the details of the documents of the Applicant and gathered report from the concerned D.F.Os., Branch Manager of the L.I.C., Branch Manager of Birla Sun Life Insurance Company, Smt. Laxmi Kawre who is wife of the Applicant, Manager of the Society, concerned Tahsildar, Sub-Registrar, Jagdalpur, etc. It was found that the information given by the Applicant regarding the properties of his wife and his other distant relative Pravin Masih was not found to be satisfactory and acceptable. Thereafter, a charge-sheet has been filed. Since the sanction has already been accorded by the competent authority, no fresh sanction is required to be obtained. Thus, the impugned order dated 5.6.2018 passed by the Special Judge is in accordance with law.