AHAMED KALNAD AND Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners in these 26 cases are all accused in the connected cases pending trial before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode. Of these, 12 revisions are by a contractor and 14 are filed by Engineers. An FIR was filed against them on 30-9-1985 reporting that the latter, while working as Engineers of various rank for works in the Attappady Valley Irrigation Project, Agali, during the period from 24-7-1978 to 9-11-1981, they committed criminal misconduct by abusing their official positions in the matter implementing a criminal conspiracy with the contractors aforementioned by placing four supply orders dated 17-11-80, 18-12-80, 19-2-81 and 3-2-81 for 95 numbers of 200mm Sluice valves in favour of M/s. Indira Engineering Corporation, Coimbatore, of which one of the accused is the Managing Partner causing loss of crores of rupees to the Government exchequer. After investigation, 13 charge sheets were filed on 10-3-1989 alleging the offences under S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as also Ss. 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. On 17-7-89, the Court framed charges against the accused in the different cases. On 10-4-1996, the petitioners filed the applications before the Court in the respective cases requesting that further proceedings in the case might be stopped and the accused might be acquitted as the sanction required for their prosecution was not validly obtained. They pointed out that the sanction order relied on by the prosecution which was issued with the signature of one M. Mohankumar, Commissioner and Secretary, Vigilance Department, on 28-1-1989 was defective for very many reasons. The Court, however, did not accept the contention and found that there was no sufficient ground for dropping the further proceedings. It is challenging these orders that the appellants have come up before this Court.

(2.) The arguments advanced by the different counsel appearing in these cases were more or less similar and they can be summarised as follows :

(3.) According to Mr. M. M. Mathew, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions, the sanction order has been validly given. The investigation of the case was being done by the Vigilance Department and the proper authority to deal with the sanction, in the circumstances, was the Vigilance Department itself. Merely because a Notification specifically empowering the Vigilance Department in the matter was issued only on 23-4-1994 that does not mean that until then the Secretary of that Department was incompetent to grant sanction representing the Government. He also pointed out that the prosecution has to be governed by the Act which was in force at the time of occurrence and continued prosecution of the accused is rendered possible by virtue of the specific saving clause in S. 30 of the new Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The sanction was granted after due application of mind which can be established before Court by producing the relevant files and by oral evidence of the author of the sanction at the time of evidence and it is too early now to state that the sanction was invalid. Further 12 of these revisions are filed by the contractor by name Udayakumar for whose prosecution no sanction at all was required. He has no locus standi to challenge the sanction or to file revisions and hence R.Ps. 755, 779, 784, 785, 789, 790, 791, 792, 793, 794, 795 and 802 of 1996 have to fail. Likewise, R.Ps. 838, 839, 847, 848, 874, 875 and 878 of 1996 were all filed by the Engineers who had retired before cognizance was taken in these cases in 1989. Actually sanction was required only to prosecute the petitioners in R.Ps. 752, 788, 834, 835, 836 and 804 of 1996. Valid sanction is there in those cases. It is also their contention that the petitioners in these cases were all links in one and the same chain and the offences alleged against them being one and the same there was no defect in granting a common sanction order.