G VISWANATHAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C. C. No. 31 of 1990 on the file of Special judge, Madurai , has filed this petition under Sec. 482, Crl. P. C, praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same.

(2.) SHORT facts arc: The respondent had earlier filed charge sheet against the petitioner for offence under Sec. 4 (1) (a) read with 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act (which I shall hereafter refer to as'the act') before the Special Judge, Madurai, on the allegations that the petitioner was the Male Nurse in the hospital attached to Heavy Water Plant at tuticorin between July, 1983 and May, 1984 that during that period, he told to certain persons that he can get employment for them in the Heavy Water Plant and had received amounts unlawfully, for his personal benefit that he is an employee of the Central Government that he had received those amounts which was not payable to him, by way of corruption. After trial, the learned Sessions judge had found that no valid sanction was obtained for launching the prosecution and that the prosecution was not launched in accordance with Sec. 6 (1) of the Act and had left the matter to the Government for obtaining valid sanction and launching prosecution against the petitioner. This judgment was rendered on 20. 3. 1989. Thereafter, after obtaining sanction, the respondent again filed chargesheet on 3. 9. 1990 against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sec. 5 (2) read with 5 (1) (a) and 5 (1) (b) of the Act. This chargesheet was taken on file in S. C. No. 31 of 1990 by the Special Judge, madurai. The accused has now come forward with this petition to quash the same.

(3.) IN Manguesh v. Stale, 1969 Crl. L. J. 1384, in a similar situation, the Additional Judicial Commissioner of Goa, Daman and Diu had taken a similar view as has been taken by the learned special Judge in C. C. No. 3 of 1985. IN the operative portion, the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner has stated as follows: "since, however, there is no valid sanction in terms of Sec. 6 (1) of the Corruption Act for prosecution of the accused on either of the two charges, I have no option but to hold the trial staged by the learned special Judge as invalid and without jurisdiction with the consequance that the conviction of the accused and the sentence imposed on him cannot be maintained. I would, therefore, accept the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused, 1 should not be taken to have expressed any opinion on the facts merits of the case. This order does not amount to acquittal of the accused on either of the two charges for which he was tried. It would be open to the State to prosecute him after obtaining proper sanction. "