ASHOTUSH SHARMA Vs. C B I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case on 13.7.2005. The impugned order held in the negative and turned down an application by the petitioner accused.

(2.) According to the allegations levelled, the petitioner, a Drug Inspector, had visited the wholesale Chemist shop of the complainant and noticed some deficiencies which led to preparation of a memo, listing those deficiencies. It was alleged that the petitioner demanded Rs. 5,000/- as a bribe. On the basis of the complaint made subsequently, it was alleged that the complainant contacted the petitioner again and a conversation between the two was recorded. It was further alleged that at the behest of the petitioner, money was handed over to one Sh. Sanjeev Garg, which was later recovered. The petitioner was arrested and thereafter admitted to regular bail on 13.5.2005 when the court required him not to leave Delhi. This condition was modified on 13.7.2005 when the Court permitted the petitioner to leave Delhi after intimating the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). On that date, i.e 13.7.2005, the petitioner was present in the Court. The court made the following order: 13.7.2005 Pr. Inspector Richpal Singh present Defence counsel Sh. A.K. Bansal present Accused is also present. Charge-sheet filed. Case be checked and registered. It is stated that sanction in this case has not yet been accorded. I.O. States that it will take two months. Case is therefore, fixed for supply of copy to 19.10.2005. Copy of this order be furnished to the accused, free of cost. Sd. ASJ/13/07/2005"

(3.) On 10.8.2005, the petitioner moved an application contending that cognizance had been taken by the said order dated 13.7.2005 without filing of a sanction and, therefore, he was entitled to be discharged. The application was resisted by the CBI which submitted that no cognizance had been taken since the petitioner accused had appeared before the court of his own accord, and also due to the fact that the Inquiry Officer had mentioned that two further months were required to obtain sanction. The Court after hearing parties rejected the application.