K SELVAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question as to whether an accused, who has been facing charges under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, can be discharged after the commencement of the trial on the ground that the sanction issued under Section 19 of the said Act is wholly without jurisdiction and on that score, the very order taking cognizance itself is bad, has come up for consideration in this revision.

(2.) The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. No. 20/2004 on the file of the Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. Long before, based on the materials placed before the Court and after affording sufficient opportunity to either side, the trial court framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) One Mr. S.S. Shetty, who was the then General Manager of the Reserve Bank of India was cited as one of the witnesses. Cognizance was taken initially, also on the basis of the sanction order issued by the said witness under Section 19 of the Act for launching prosecution. During the relevant period, the petitioner was holding the post of "Coin and Note Examiner" in Reserve Bank of India. During the trial of the case, Mr. S.S. Shetty was examined as P.W.1 on 6.6.2005. He was cross examined on 21.12.2005, during which, his very authority to issue valid sanction was challenged. Based on certain documents, an incisive cross examination was done. Though P.W.1 has withstood the said cross examination to maintain that he is the competent authority to issue sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner, it was suggested to him by the petitioner that the competent authority to issue sanction is only, the Chief General Manager and not the General Manager. According to the petitioner, P.W.1 has in a way admitted the said position also.