KAPIL DEV SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY preferring this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner with issuance of writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ, seeks quashment of the order dated 24/5/06 (Annexure -P/1) issued by the Deputy Director Secretariat, Urban Administration and Development M.P. Bhopal together with the Resolution No.184 dated 3/6/06 (Annexure -P/2) passed by President -in -Council of Municipality Ganjbasoda in pursuance of which directed to prosecute the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that on 17th February 2006, upon receiving information from one, namely, Jafar Qureshi with respect to likely acceptance of Rs. 200/ - towards illegal gratification by the petitioner, who was holding post of Accountant at the relevant time in Municipal Council, Ganjbasoda (Vidisha), the Police Lokayukt arranged a trap party for verifying the aforesaid fact. In trap, the accused -petitioner caught hold of red -handed. Accordingly, an F.I.R. was lodged and investigation was set in motion. Obviously, in the investigation prior to submission of charge -sheet, the permission to persecute the petitioner -accused was sought from the employer - Council of the Municipality Ganjbasoda. After consideration, the President Municipality Ganjbasoda, at first instance vide resolution passed by the Municipal Council, Ganjbasoda refused to accord sanction for prosecution of the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Subsequently, on making correspondence by Lokayukt Organization and under the direction of the Deputy Director of Urban Administration and Welfare Bhopal, vide order Annexure -P/1 dated 24/5/06, the President -in -Council by impugned Resolution dated 3rd June 2006, on proposal of the Municipal Council accorded the sanction for prosecution against the accused/petitioner.

(3.) IN short reply, the submission of the respondents No. 1 to 3 is that upon receiving sanction order, the case was registered against the petitioner for receiving the illegal gratification and the currency received by him was also recovered. After investigation, the charge -sheet was filed by the Lokayukt police before the Special court for adjudication. The special case has been registered and now is posted for framing charge. It is submitted that the petitioner has ample opportunity to contest the charge and question the validity of the sanction order to prosecute him by the authority. Under the circumstances, it is prayed that the writ petition since has no substance, is liable to be rejected.