JIWAN RAM GUPTA Vs. STATE THR CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the Petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings initiated by the Respondent in RC-104(A)/95SPE/CBI/ACB/New Delhi under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short PC Act). The facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are that the Petitioner was arrested in a trap case on 24th November, 1995. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he was falsely implicated by the then Commissioner, Land Management, DDA as the Petitioner while working as Manager, Land Management, DDA pointed out to the Vice Chairman, DDA wrong allotment of Petrol Pump Site at Pitampura in the name of Smt. Rashmi Choudhary which was subsequently cancelled. On 12th August, 1996 the CBI obtained sanction for prosecution under Section 19 PC Act from the Finance Member, DDA and filed the charge-sheet. The Petitioner agitated that the sanction was granted by an authority not competent to grant the same and thus he could not be prosecuted. After framing of the charge, the Petitioner filed an application before the Learned Trial Court contending that the prosecution could be initiated against him only after grant of valid and legal sanction i.e. by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Finance Member, DDA was not the competent authority to accord sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. The Learned Trial Court vide order dated 27th January, 2010 acquitted the Petitioner on the ground that the sanction order passed by PW1, the then Finance Member, DDA was invalid in the eyes of law. However, the CBI was given liberty to take further legal action, if any, as deemed fit under law. In the meantime the Petitioner had retired on 29th February, 2004. Since the Petitioner had retired on 29th February, 2004 the Respondent again filed the charge-sheet dated 7th April, 2010 vide CC No. 2/2010 without obtaining any sanction against the Petitioner on the same grounds. The contention of the Respondent was that since the Petitioner had retired, no sanction was now required to be obtained. The Petitioner filed an application dated 3rd December, 2010 under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking dropping of the proceedings pleading therein that a fresh charge without the sanction after retirement of the Petitioner is bad in law. However, the Learned Trial Judge has not decided the said application and hence the present petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner has already faced an ordeal of trial for 16 years. The Petitioner is a senior citizen and in view of the delay which is not attributable to the Petitioner the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed. Reliance in this regard is placed on S.G. Nain Vs. Union of India, 1995 Supp4 SCC 552; Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat, 1997 7 SCC 622; Mahendra Lal Das Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., 2002 1 SCC 149; Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2009 LawSuit(SC) 53; S.K. Mitttal Vs. CBI Crl.M.C. 2215/2004 decided by this Court on 13th September, 2007 and Dharam Vir Singh Vs. CBI Crl.M.C. 3554/2007 decided by this Court on 7th March, 2008.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent/CBI on the other hand contends that the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner have no applicability. In the abovementioned decisions, the proceedings were quashed because there was enormous delay during trial and the delay was not on account of the accused. In the present case a charge-sheet was filed against the Petitioner, however the Learned Trial Court held that the sanction was not granted by the competent authority and thus acquitted the Respondent with liberty to take action in accordance with law. Since the Petitioner has retired, the proceedings against him can now be initiated without the sanction and hence there is no ground for quashing of the proceedings. Reliance is placed on State of Karnataka Vs. C. Nagarajaswamy, 2005 8 SCC 370; Chittaranjan Das Vs. State of Orissa, 2011 7 SCC 167; Manguesh Jaiwant Sinai Vs. State, and The State Vs. Bharat Chandra Rout, 1993 CrLJ 2499. Thus the present petition is liable to be dismissed.