NITYANAND JOSHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these revisions shall dispose of by this common order because the applicant and non-applicant are the same and point involved are also same in all these three revisions.

(2.) THE applicant is a retired Executive Engineer of Municipal Corporation, Indore. He has Tiled these revisions against the order dated 7-2-2002 whereby the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge and Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act) has framed charges against the applicant under Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Act" ).

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for applicant is that at the initial stage, sanction for prosecution was not granted by the sanctioning authority by order dated 10-12-99. Thereafter, again the sanction has been granted to prosecute the applicant for the offence under the Act by the Sanctioning Authority by order dated 13-5-2000. The learned Counsel has submitted that the authority once refused to grant sanction to prosecute the applicant can not again grant sanction on the same material. The learned Counsel for applicant has placed heavy reliance on the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. , Civil Writ No. 3829/1978. The learned Counsel has filed the photostat certified copy of the judgment. On similar point he has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Supreme Court in case of Ramanand Choudhary v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 948) and submitted that merely by illegal grant of sanction to construct the multi storey building would not be sufficient to raise presumption against the applicant that he obtained illegal gratification or given benefit to the concerned persons after doing some corrupt practices.