RAJENDRASINH AMARSINH SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case a sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is vitiated although the learned A.P.P. strenuously urged that sanction is valid.

(2.) One R.A. Solanki, who was Junior clerk at the relevant time in Kheda, District Panchayat had said to have the property disproportionate to his known source of income. The period taken into consideration by prosecution is 1984 to 2003. His lawful income during this period is calculated at Rs. 9,62,952/against that possible expenditure assessed at Rs. 4,68,181 from the income. So, the possible saving would be Rs. 4,94,772/- against that the applicant-petitioner has immovable property of Rs. 17,75,227/- and has a vehicles of worth Rs. 4,43,537/ - and savings in banks and post office of Rs. 8,11,992/-. Thus, in all total assets of relevant period is of Rs. 30,33,750/-, deducting the amount of possible saving from the same, it would be appear that the petitioner had assets of Rs. 25,38,978/ disproportionate to his known source of income. ACB Office has said to have carried out enquiry in this regard and thereafter has lodged the complaint against the present petitioner.

(3.) In due course Investigating Officer had applied for sanction for prosecution, D.D.O. of District Panchayat Kheda in his report dated 15.4.2010, has concluded that prima facie there is no case of sanction for prosecution. Disagreeing with this report, Gujarat Vigilance Department by its letter dated 27.9.2010 has recommended the D.D.O. for granting sanction for prosecution. Thereafter, D.D.O. by letter dated 27.9.2010 has granted the sanction.