(1.) Heard learned Counsels for the parties.
(2.) By means of this petition, moved under Sec. 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner has challenged his prosecution in criminal case No. 14 of 2004, State of Uttaranchal v/s. Yogendra Nath Arora pending in the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Nainital.
(3.) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition are that the Petitioner is a public servant and aforesaid criminal case is pending before Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Nainital, relating to offence punishable under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 13(1)(b) and Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity herein after referred as P.C. Act). The grounds on which the prosecution is challenged by the Petitioner is that prosecution is being proceeded without lawful sanction of a competent authority. The Petitioner was employed as Deputy General Manager with a Corporation known as UPICO, an undertaking of the Government of U.P. It is only after the creation of State of Uttaranchal that the Uttaranchal Government proposed to take services of the Petitioner on deputation with its undertaking -State Industrial Development Corporation (popularly known as SIDCUL). On the request of Government of Uttaranchal, UPICO relieved the Petitioner to provide services of the Petitioner on deputation with SIDCUL in compliance of which Petitioner joined his duties as Deputy General Manager in SIDCUL on 23 -01 -2003. The Petitioner has further stated in the petition that after the period of deputation expired on 30 -06 -2004, the Petitioner was repatriated to his parent department i.e. UPICO. It appears that a crime No. 168 of 2004 with police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun, was registered against the accused by Vigilance Inspector, relating to offence punishable under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act. After investigation, charge sheet was filed in respect of said crime and the impugned criminal case is the result of said investigation.