ARUNKUMAR SHANTILAL PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocates for both sides for final disposal. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner who is the original complainant filed the complaint under Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") vide CR No.9/02 with ACB Police Station, Gandhinagar. As per the complainant the amount of Rs.12,000/- per person holding the agency was finalised and as per the complainant the amount was paid to Shri Shah, the respondent No.3 through Viram Desai. District Supply Inspector. It appears that thereafter trap was carried out and as per the investigation made by ACB the packet of amount was handed over to Viram Desai who thereafter left the office. The sanction was applied by the ACB and the sanction has been granted for prosecution against Viram Desai whereas the sanction is not granted and/or is declined by the State Govt against Shah and it is under these circumstances the petitioner has approached this court.

(2.) It also appears that when the ACB applied for sanction, there was the opinion of the Gujarat Vigilance Commission forwarded to the State Govt for not recommending the grant of sanction for prosecution against Shah. As per the petitioner the State Govt has acted upon the recommendation of the Vigilance Commission and there is no independent application of mind on the part of the State Govt. It also appears that thereafter once again letter was addressed by the Director General of Police, ACB to the State Vigilance Commission and the matter was, once again, considered by the State Govt and earlier the decision is reiterated.

(3.) Heard Mr.Amin for the petitioner, Mr.Kogje, Ld.APP for the respondent Nos 1 and 2 and Mr.Raju for the respondent No.3.