SUKHDEV SINGH JAMWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Gavnekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Pawar, learned APP for the State of Maharashtra. It is very distressing to note that inspite of the matter being adjourned twice nobody representing the CBI is present when the CBI is respondent no.3, at whose instance charge -sheets were filed against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act. I am, therefore, processing on the basis of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

(2.) THREE chargesheets have been filed against the petitioner on the basis of the sanction orders which are Exhibits C and F of this petition vide Special Case Nos. 28/90, 29/90 and 27/92 before the Special Judge, Bombay.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that before giving sanction to prosecute the petitioner under section 13(1)(e) of the said Act, it was incumbent upon the Investigating Agency and the Sanctioning Authority to seek explanation from the petitioner regarding the property found in his possession which was disapproportionate, according to the prosecution to his known source of income. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment reported in 1995 (1) Mh.L.J. 558 State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramkrishna, where the same view has been taken and order of discharge of accused was confirmed on the ground that the sanctioning authority did not offer an opportunity to the accused to explain satisfactorily disapproportionate asset found. He also relied upon one ruling reported in A.I.R. 1979 SC Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of A.P., in support of his contention.