PRABHU LAL TATWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition under Sec. 397 read with 401 and 482 of the Cr.P.C. petitioner Prabhu Lal Tatwal is aggrieved by the order dated 28/10/2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act), Ujjain in Special Case No. 12/2004. The order admittedly was passed in consequence to the order dated 23.7.2015 in Criminal Revision No. 797/2015 preferred by the petitioner seeking remand. The remand was prayed for on three grounds that the relevant material was not placed before the Competent Authority. Whereas the Competent Authority has referred to the material so as to form the opinion whether the offence required sanction for prosecution. The petitioner has also filed another petition bearing Criminal Revision No. 96/2005 before this Court challenging the order dated 27.12.2004 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the objection filed by the petitioner with regard to the validity of sanction. The said revision petition has been dismissed by this High Court on 25.8.2011. The petitioner again preferred a Special Leave Petition No. 9999/2011 before the Apex Court and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court to look into the validity of the sanction at the very outset. The Trial Court had however, on 10.2.2015 again held that the question of validity of sanction would be looked into at the stage of trial. The petitioner again preferred a petition bearing Criminal Revision No. 797/2015 against the said order dated 10.2.2015 before this High Court and the Court by order dated 23.7.2015 whereby specific directions were given to the Trial Court and again the Trial Court had dismissed the plea of the petitioner without complying with the directions given by this High Court. And hence, the present revision petition impugning order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the Trial Court.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case in nutshell are that the present petitioner is an Assistant Engineer and an employee of the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain. The tenders for the construction of an administrative building were being processed and it was found that certain amount of money were sanctioned to the bid by offering rebate of Rs. 20 lacs. and in the year 1993 a complaint was filed before the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta) and after involvement of several persons, they were found to be implicated along with the present petitioner for offence under Sec. 13(1(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred as " the Act"). The D.I.G., Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta) vide letter dated 9.2.1996 sought common sanction under Sec. 19 of the Act for the joint prosecution of the accused persons including the present petitioner. The letter was addressed to the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact the incomplete copies of the report were sent to the Committee of Municipal Corporation which was to decide the issue of sanction on the basis of letter dated 12.7.1996 numbered as 1095, written by Secretary of Nagar Palika Nigam, Ujjain to the Commissioner, Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam. In this letter it has been mentioned that page 5 of the report of Special Police Establishment is missing. Counsel submitted that it was amply clear that the report of Lokayukta Police, scrutinized by the Secretary of the Standing Committee, was incomplete and the letter dated 14.5.1996 was never filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also. And hence, the petitioner has filed an application under Sec. 311 of the Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court to examine the sanctioning authority and it is the say of the petitioner that material collected during the course of the investigation along with the charge sheet was not actually produced before the Standing Committee from which the sanction was sought. And thus, the sanction cannot be said to be a legal sanction under Sec. 19 of the P.C. Act. Admittedly there was no application of mind on the part of the Sanctioning Committee while granting to prosecute the petitioner. Counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the application under Sec. 311 of the Cr.P.C. be allowed. To bolster his submissions, Counsel relied on Nanjappa v/s. State of Karnataka : Criminal Appeal No. 1867 of 2012 whereby the Apex Court has held thus: