RAM KUMAR RAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the order dated 15-1-2002 passed by the Special Judge/Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Shajapur (Smt. S. B. Rehman) declining to accept final report filed by the prosecution i.e. Special Police Establishment, Ujjain. But the same was returned back by order dated 30-11-2001 with the direction that "after completing all legal formalities, the case should be sent to the Court for final report". The report was returned on the ground that as per provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecuting agency did not take any step for obtaining sanction though there was a direction given by the Court below and without complying with the direction given in the past, again the final report was submitted by the prosecution. But the same was not in accordance with law when the Court had issued specific direction for completion of legal formalities i.e. sending the matter to the sanctioning authority for consideration of sanction. The final report was filed again as it was filed earlier when the said direction was issued. The trial Court on 15-1-02 recorded the statement of Mahavir Singh Chandrawat who has stated that he had not lodged any false report. Thereafter, the trial Court has passed the order that after perusal of the statement of the witness and other documents of the case, in the opinion of the said Court, prima facie case under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out and also took cognizance for the aforesaid offences. The trial Court, thereafter put the case for hearing both the parties i.e. the accused and the prosecution on the point whether after taking cognizance by the trial Court, the Court can send the matter for obtaining the sanction. The Court has also directed the prosecuting agency for production of all the documents which were prepared during the course of investigation or the Investigating Officer to submit a declaration that he has no other documents in his custody regarding this case.

(2.) The trial Court has also issued direction for sending the copies of this order to the Chief Secretary, D.G.P., Lokayukta, Bhopal and fixed the case for hearing the matter on the question of sanction, on 5-2-2002. This is the order which is impugned in this revision.

(3.) In the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has committed a glaring illegality by passing the order for placing the matter by Investigating Agency before the Sanctioning Authority for grant of sanction, because this step could have been taken by the Investigating Agency when they found prima facie case or sufficient material for prosecuting the accused and ready to file the charge-sheet for that purpose as per the provisions of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Secondly, there is no dispute about the legal position that the trial Court is not obliged or bound to accept the Katma-report ipso facto as presented by the Investigating Agency. The Court has jurisdiction to examine the matter thoroughly and come to the conclusion whether a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused is made out or not and if made out, the Court is required to pass a detailed reasoned and speaking order mentioning that on what material the Court is forming such opinion.