SANTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 9-10-98 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) U. P. Lucknow holding that the sanction for prosecution granted by the Assistant General Manager is valid. The accused Santosh Kumar Shukla has challenged the order on the ground that the sanctioning authority had not seen all relevant papers and there was total non-application of mind and consequently the sanction is invalid and on its basis the revisionist could not be prosecuted.

(2.) HEARD Sri Nandit Kumar Srivastava, assisted, by Sri P. Chakravarty, the learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Biteshwar Nath, learned Government Ad vocate.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that admittedly Shri Jain, the sanctioning authority had not perused all the documents nor the confes sional statement of the accused and fur ther he did not consider whether any other employee was involved in the offence or not and consequently there was non- application of mind. He also pointed out that though Shri. Jain has claimed that he had perused the file of the departmental enquiry but in the cross-examination he had to admit that no evidence was recorded during the said enquiry and consequently this departmental proceeding would not have been of any help to the officer in finding whether the accused was prima facie guilty of the offence complained, THE learned Counsel also contended that Sri Jain has passed his order according sanc tion on the basis of the report of C. B. Iand, therefore, the order is invalid.