S.S. AGNIHOTRI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties for admission. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure essentially takes exception to the order passed by the Trial Court dated 26th August, 2014 rejecting the petitioner's application for holding that no proper sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been accorded against the petitioner and for which reason he should be acquitted.

(2.) The Trial Court has rejected that application on the finding that the grievance of the petitioner about the validity of sanction can be considered at the appropriate stage in the trial. That is our understanding of the reason recorded by the trail Court and we are not in agreement with the criticism of the counsel for the petitioner that the issue about the validity of sanction has been decided by the trial Court, as such. Reverting to the application on which the order came to be passed by the Trial Court on 26th August, 2014 the only ground stated to doubt the validity of sanction accorded against the petitioner is that no sanction was produced before the Trial Court. The documents produced were only communications and not a sanction order issued by the Competent Authority.

(3.) Whether the documents relied by the prosecution as sanction order were admissible and have been proved by the prosecution is obviously a matter which can be tested at the appropriate stage during the trial. To that extent, the opinion recorded by the trial Court in order dated 26th August, 2014, cannot be doubted. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court, however, is founded on the exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of C.B.I. vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, 2014 AIR(SC) 827. In our opinion, the exposition in that case is in the context of the fact situation of that case. The Supreme Court in paragraphs 46 and 47 has restated the general rule as to when the question regarding validity of sanction should be considered. Paragraphs 46 and 47 of the said judgment reads thus: -