KAMATCHI Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed to quash the Special Case No. 2 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur, against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(ii) r/w 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sanctioning Authority has not applied his mind and therefore the sanction is vitiated and on that ground, the case has to be quashed. He submitted that the prosecution case as spoken to by P.W. 1 is that the petitioner demanded Rs. 1000/ - for issuing the Certificate and the complainant went to the Vigilance and Anti -Corruption Department and gave a complaint and after completing the formalities, he came to the office of the petitioner, where P.W.1 was asked to come by the petitioner. In the office of the petitioner, the petitioner was not available and the complainant was directed to come to the Collector Office by the petitioner and therefore, the de facto complainant along with the official witness went to Collector office, where the petitioner demanded the money and the de facto complainant gave that amount to the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was arrested. He, therefore, submitted that according to the prosecution case, the amount was paid in the Collector Office and not in the office of the petitioner. But in the Sanction Order, it has been stated that the petitioner reiterated the earlier demand of bribe and accepted Rs. 1000/ - from the complainant on 06.07.2011 between 13.00 hours and 13.15 hours, in her office. He therefore submitted that the Sanctioning Authority has not applied his mind and according to the Sanctioning Authority, the bribe was given in the office of the petitioner, whereas the prosecution case is that the amount was given in the Collector office and on that ground, the case is liable to be quashed. He also relied on a judgment reported in : 1996 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 95 (S. Krishnamurthy Vs State, Inspector of Police, Vigilance Anti -Corruption), in support of his case.

(3.) THEREFORE , it has to be seen whether the case is liable to be quashed on the ground of non -application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority in granting sanction.