SHANTARAM DAMODAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel Mr. B. R. Warma for the petitioners, learned A. P. P. Mr. V. H. Dighe, for respondent No. 1 and learned counsel Mr. D. S. Bagul, who appears for respondent No. 2.

(2.) FACTS in brief, may be summarised, as follows - (a) The petitioner No. 1 Shantaram damodhar Shukla, initially was appointed as jr. Assistant in Zilla Parishad, Dhule by an order dated June 17, 1964. In due course of time he was promoted as Deputy Accountant and posted as Deputy Accountant in District rural Development Authority, Dhule (D. R. D. A. Dhule for short.) with effect from february, 1988 to June 14, 1991. Petitioner no. 1 Shantaram Damodhar Shukla has attained superannuation on April 30, 2001. During the relevant period, when the crimes have been registered, petitioner No. 1 shantaram Damodhar Shukla was workingin said D. R. D. A. Dhule. The petitioner No. 2 V. R. Chaudhary was appointed as Sr. Assistant on February 19, 1973. He had also worked as extension Officer. At the time of occurrence, the petitioner No. 2 Mr. Vijay Rarndas chaudhary was working as Statistical Assistant with D. R. D,a. Dhule. The petitioner No. 3 bhaskar Naithu Patil was appointed as deputy Accountant by order dated 25-06-1969 and promoted as Head Accountant in finance Department of Zilla Parishad, Dhule and Head Accountant in D. R. D. A. Dhule, during june 6, 1987 to May 18,1991. At the time of alleged economic offence, he was serving as head Accountantd. R. D. A. , Dhule. Petitioner no. 4 Manohar Hiraman Chaudhary initially was appointed as Government Servant Social education Organizer in National Extension service Block Jarnkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar with effect from October 20, 1956. At the relevant time, he was Project Director, D. R. D. A. , dhule from August 5,1986 tojune 13,1990. This petitioner has also attained superannuation on March 3, 1992. The relevant period, during which, misappropriation of the funds have been alleged, is 1988 to 1991. During this period various crimes as noted hereinbelow have been registered against the present petitioners. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_3100_CRLJ_2006Html1.htm</FRM> (b) The offences were registered under Section 409 r/w sections 120 (B) and 477 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13 (l) (c) and 13 (2)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. These offences have been registered at various crimes, as noted above. After registration of these offences, proposal in due course of time, was submitted for sanction to prosecute all these petitioners, under Section 19 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "act of 1947" for short ). Such sanction has been accorded by the Chief executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhule. The learned counsel Mr. B. R. Warma, admits that this sanction is accorded during the period ranging from 1993 till 1998by various orders. Details of all these orders are not necessary, since fact of sanction against the petitioners is not disputed on behalf of the petitioners. (c) The State of Maharashtra, passed a government Resolution dated April 3,2000, in relation to grant of sanction to prosecute various members of the staff and officers under the provisions of Act of 1947. Copy of the said government Resolution is annexed with the petition as Annexure "c". The learned counsel mr. B. R. Warma, is referring to clause (d)of paragraph No. 4. Clause (d) of paragraph no. 4, provides that whenever in a case more than one officer of equal rank, have been involved according to the Anti Corruption Department, in that eventuality, while granting sanction in relation to all such officers/employees, principle of equality needs to be applied. It has been clarified that unless sanction is accorded for prosecution against the higher Officers by the competent authority, lower rank officers shall not be prosecuted. In case of refusal of sanction in relation to Superior/higher officer (s), to prosecute lower rank officers, in that eventuality shall not be proceeded with any sanction. (d) In this petition, the petitioners are seeking writ of certiorari or the appropriate writ or direction in the like nature, quashing and setting aside the sanction accorded in relation to the petitioners dated June 15,1994 and February 27, 1998 (Exh. A ). In prayer clause (B), writ of mandamus is sought against the respondents , directing to act and implement the policy/norms/decision in respect of grant of sanction to all the pending cases. Prayer clause (C) seeks an interim relief and prayer clause (D) as well seeks interim relief in relation to Special Case No. 3/1991.

(3.) ON behalf of respondent No. 1 state, return is filed. This affidavit-in-reply is sworn in by Bhagwan s/o Uttam Dhole, Deputy superintendent of Police (C. I. D.), Dhule on February 2, 2006. In this return, it is stated that the sanction orders have been issued long time back. These orders have been also filed in the case during the course of evidence. The evidence is being referred to in this return. Part of the cross-examination is also being referred. Ultimately, it is stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-reply that the objection regarding sanction order should be raised at initial stage only. For this proposition, judgment of the apex Court in the matter of State of Orissa v. Mrutunjaya Panda reported in 1998 (1)Crimes 109 (SC) : (AIR 1998 SC 715) and in the matter of State by Police Inspector v. Shri venkatesh Moorthi reported in 2004 (10) SRJ 116: (AIR 2004 SC 5117), are being relied upon. The mode of challenge to sanction adopted by the present petitioners at the fag end of the trial, according to the deponent is not legal and valid. According tot he deponent, document Exhibit-C annexed with petition i. e. Government Resolution dated April 3, 2000 is not related to the present facts of the case, as said letter is exclusively relating to the procedure to be adopted to accord the sanction in respect of proposal for sanction to be forwarded by the Director of Anti Corruption bureau (ACB ). It is further clarified in paragraph No. 5 of the return that the sanction orders and vouchers, in relation to petitioner nos. 3 and 4, are dated October 17, 1989 and are signed by the petitioner No. 4 and initialled by petitioner No. 3. In relation to Special Case no. 3 of 1991, it is stated that all the accused in conspiracy with main accused Bhaskar wagh, Cashier, M. I. D. , Zilla Parishad Dhule, misappropriated an amount of Rs. One crore sixty Seven lacs, in the short span of time. i. e. with effect from 11-05-1989 to 22-01-1990. This case is awaiting trial since 1991. Referring to Section 19 of the Act of 1947, it is submitted that no stay can be granted for hearing of the case under the provisions of Act of 1947. Regarding refusal of the sanction to Mr. D. S. Vatkar, the then Chief Executive Officer, Zilla parishad Dhule, by the State Government, was known to the petitioners since the filing of the chargesheet, but only with a malafide intention of protracting the trial, this petition is filed by the petitioners.