DHANRAJBHAI HIRABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionists, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.), have come with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 21.08.2020, passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions and Special (ACB) Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Criminal Inquiry (ACB) No.1/2020. The complaint was filed under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") read with Section 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "P.C. Act") against the respondent no.3, who was on the post of Sarpanch, Gola Gram Panchayat, Taluka-Palanpur. The complaint before the Special (ACB) Judge came to be rejected on the ground of maintainability in absence of sanction.

(2.) A private complaint filed before the Principal District Judge, Banskantha at Palanpur having been registered as Criminal Inquiry (ACB) No.1/2020 was transferred to Fifth Additional District Judge Banaskantha for disposal in accordance with law and thereafter the matter came before the Sixth Additional Sessions and Special (ACB) Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur on 10.07.2020, with the allegations that respondent no.3 being Sarpanch of Gola Gram Panchayat has misappropriated the public money and committed fraud with Government by arbitrarily allotting the work of installation of LED lights to one Adarsh Sales without any advertisement in newspaper. The LED lights, as alleged, available at Rs.1200/- to Rs.1500/- in the market were purchased at the rate of Rs.4500/- from Adarsh Sales, who had issued a bill without VAT number. It is alleged that the price were called from three firms and by taking undue advantage of the status respondent no.3 abused his office for corrupt motives, misused the public funds for purchase of LED lights from Adarsh Sales.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Aftabhusen Ansari appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned judgment and order of the Special (ACB) Judge is illegal, perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law. The learned Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the investigating report of the police discloses prima facie that cognizable offence is made out against respondent no.3. Mr. Ansari stated that the respondent no.3 has been removed from the post of Sarpanch vide order dated 03.02.2018 by Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Gandhinagar, Gujarat and that Special (ACB) Judge has misinterpreted the relevant provisions of law and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court while considering the issue of sanction. Mr. Ansari contended that the sanction is not required at the time of registration of complaint or lodging the FIR, it would be required only while framing the charge against the accused and thereby the Special (ACB) Judge has erred in law by rejecting the Criminal Inquiry (ACB) No.1/2020, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice.