M. K. GUPTA Vs. C.B.I., GHAZIABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard parties' counsel at length and perused the record.

(2.) This revision challenges the order dated 14.6.2013 passed by Special Judge, CBI 1st, Ghaziabad on the application of the revisionist for dropping the proceedings of Special Case no. 10/2011 CBI Vs. Mahendra Kumar Gupta u/s 7 Prevention of Corruption Act for want of sanction of his prosecution.

(3.) Facts germane to the revision that as culled out from the affidavit of the revisionist and counter affidavit filed by the opposite party are that pursuant to the complaint dated 21.8.1993 of complainant Prem Pal Varshney case at Crime no. RC-17(A)/93-DAD was registered u/s 7 Prevention of Corruption Act under the orders of Superintendent of Police, CBI, SPE, Dehradun. The revisionist was caught red handed by the CBI while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 2,500/- from the complainant in presence of panch witnesses. The investigation culminated in to closure report, but the same was rejected by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Dehradun vide order dated 29.8.1998 by taking cognizance against the revisionist he was summoned. During pendency of the investigation a departmental inquiry was conducted and the revisionist was exonerated from the charges leveled against him which were quite similar to the allegations made in the instant case. The revisionist challenged the order in Criminal Revision no. 1127 of 1999 in this Court, which had been finally dismissed on 27.5.2013. Thereafter on 14.6.2013 an application was filed by the revisionist in the trial Court for dropping the proceedings for want of sanction of his prosecution inter alia stating that after his arrest on 24.8.1993, he was released on bail by the CBI. Thereafter the department suspended him, an enquiry was instituted. He was exonerated of the charges, his suspension was revoked and he joined duties on 24.7.1995. On the date when the Court took cognizance against him he was in service. It has been further stated as per provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sanction for prosecution is necessary before taking cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. Since at the time of taking cognizance by the Court or till today there was or is no sanction for his prosecution, therefore, he cannot be prosecuted in the case. He has concluded that he was not aware of the legal position, so he could not take this plea earlier. This application of the revisionist was disposed of by the learned trial Court on 14.6.2013 with the following order: