RAVINDER KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Ravinder Kumar Sharma by filing the present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails order dated 16.05.2014 and 22.05.2014 passed by learned Special Judge (PC Act -05) , ACB (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the application filed on behalf of petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) IN a nut shell the facts of the case are that on 28.09.2011 complainant Mr. Satish Kumar Aggarwal made a complaint lodging that the petitioner Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Junior Engineer, DDA was demanding bribe from him for de -sealing the house. A trap was laid by the officers of the Anti Corruption Branch and an amount of Rs. 50,000/ - (Rupees Fifty thousand) were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The numbers of currency notes matched with the numbers of currency notes recorded by Anti Corruption Branch in pre -raid proceedings. The left hand of the petitioner was washed with the transparent solution of sodium carbonate and it turned pink, establishing that petitioner has physically accepted the bribe amount. Thereafter, the case was registered and the petitioner was arrested. The sanction for prosecution, as required under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was obtained. On completion of investigation charge -sheet was filed. Therefore, charges for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act were framed by the trial court on 01.04.2014.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer, Group 'C' in Delhi Development Authority on 13.05.1986 and Vice Chairman was the appointing authority. The sanction under Section 19 of the Act to prosecute the petitioner was granted by the Commissioner (Personnel) , DDA vide order dated 06.09.2013. Therefore, she further submits that the Commissioner (Personnel) , DDA being subordinate to Vice Chairman, DDA was not competent to remove the petitioner from his office and, therefore, not competent to accord sanction for prosecution.