RAVI KUMAR Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the accused in CC No. 34 of 2010, on the file of the XIII Additional Special Court for CBI Cases, Chennai. THE first petitioner is the public servant and the second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner and the final report was filed against them for their holding disproportionate assets to the known sources of income. THEy filed this petition seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that sanction accorded to prosecute the first petitioner who is a public servant is illegal and invalid.

(2.) MR. K. Suresh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner was working as Inspector of Income Tax. The Commissioner of Income tax, who is a competent authority by name Avinash K. Sahay declined to grant sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to prosecute the first petitioner who is a public servant for the alleged offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Subsequently, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax accorded sanction order dated 6.9.2010, for the prosecution of the first petitioner. The second order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax according sanction is illegal, against law and the guidelines laid down with regard to sanction in the Vigilance Manual has not been followed.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further contended that there is error in the sanction order given by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA) and there was a non-application of mind while according sanction. THE Chief Commissioner of Income Tax did not consider the reasons given by the competent authority for declining the sanction. Relying on the same material which was placed before the competent authority, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax reviewed the order of the competent authority without any basis and thereby the sanctum of the sanction order has been lost.