HARISH CHANDRA MAURYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) By this revision, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 23.02.2012 passed by the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Varanasi, whereby the court below found sufficient material on record to frame charge against the revisionist, under Sections 7/8/12 and Sections 13(1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the sanction order dated 16.12.2009 records satisfaction only with respect to commission of offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, therefore, charge could not have been framed under Sections 7 / 8 /12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as there was no sanction with respect to those provisions, as is mandatory under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.