A UMAPATHI Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is before us on reference by a learned singlejudge. The questions urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are: (1) the constitutional validity of Section 19(3)(a) to 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); and (2) the invalidity of the sanction accorded by the Respondent No.1. for prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 5(1)(a) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Act.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that the house of the petitioner, a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, was raided on 30th October, 1987 and disproportionate assetspurportedlyhaving been found, sanction wasaccorded on 28th March, 1992 by Respondent No.l. After investigation was over the charge-sheet was submitted on 1-6-1992 against which the present writ petition was filed. The petitioner also filed an application before the Special Judge for ACB Cases for discharge, but the application was dismissed on 26th March, 1993 upholding the validity of the sanction as against which Criminal Revision No.214/1993 was preferred before this Court, but was dismissed on 17-4-1993. Admittedly, that judgment has become final having not been challenged before the Supreme Court.

(3.) So far as the question of invalidity of the sanction is concerned, Mr. A.T.M. Rangaramanujam urges it to be vitiated as the explanation submitted by the petitioner with reference to his admitted salary drawn had not been considered by the sanctioning authroity, as a result of which, it is submitted, disproportionate assets worth more than Rs.2 lakhs was purported to have been found. There had been no application of mind of the sanctioning authority. Another submission is that, the order of sanction does not show any reason for according the sanction.