RAJIV BHATNAGAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the first accused among four accused for an offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 409 IPC and under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act pending on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai in C.C.No.201 of 1997.

(2.) PENDING enquiry, discharge application has been filed by the petitioner and after hearing both parties, the same was dismissed. Subsequently, charges were framed against the petitioner. Aggrieved against the framing of charges, the present petition to quash the proceedings has been filed before this Honourable Court.

(3.) I have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions made by both parties. While dismissing the discharge petition, an elaborate discussion has been made and the learned trial Judge has come to a conclusion that sanction issued by the Chief General Manager is a valid sanction. In the quash petition as well as at the time when the counsel for petitioner made his submissions, the prejudice caused on account of sanction accorded by the sanctioning authority was not established. More over, the petitioner could not establish that failure of justice had in fact been occasioned on account of the sanction accorded by the Chief General Manager. The contention of the prosecution is that the Chief General Manager is the competent authority to accord sanction to the petitioner. More over, only during the course of trial, the prejudice caused may be established. When such an opportunity is always available to the petitioner, it is inappropriate to approach this Honourable Court by way the petition to quash the proceedings.