PRABIR KUMAR PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-Prabir Kumar Pradhan with a prayer to quash the order dated 31.07.2002 passed in T.R. Case No.76 of 2002, whereby, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar has been pleased to take cognizance of the offence under Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act and 120-B, I.P.C. against him along with three others.

(2.) MR . Dhal, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that as on the date of passing of the order of cognizance i.e. on 31.07.2002, the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Cuttack and as stipulated in Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (In short 'PC. Act'), the learned Special Judge . (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar was not competent to take cognizance of the offence against the present petitioner purportedly on the ground that the mandatory sanction as required to take cognizance under Section 19 of the said Act for the proceeding had not been obtained. Mr. Dhal further submits that, in fact, while the charge-sheet was submitted on 8.7.2002, the impugned order of cognizance was passed on 31.07.2002 and no sanction had been obtained by the prosecution by the said date. He further submits that the petitioner who was admittedly a public servant was sought to be prosecuted in the present proceeding, the court of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar ought not to have passed the order of cognizance one 31.07.2002, since, no previous sanction had been obtained by the prosecution nor was any order of sanction produced before the court by the said date, as stipulated in Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988.

(3.) MR . P. K. Pani, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department, fairly submits that, in fact, on the date of passing of the impugned order of cognizance i.e. on 31.07.2002, no sanction had been obtained by the prosecution by the said date. He further fairly submits that no sanction whatsoever was produced before the court on the date the order of cognizance was passed. It was further submitted that from amongst the four accused persons, only the present petitioner was continuing as the Government servant as on the date of the prosecution and prior sanction as contemplated under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988 was mandatory for a court to take cognizance of such offence. But while making the submissions as noted hereinabove, Mr. Pani, placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of T.N. v. M. M. Rajendran (1998) 9 SCC 268 as well as in the case of State of Karnataka through C.B.I. v. C. Nagarajaswamy, AIR 2005 SC 4308. Considering the submissions advanced, it would be useful here to quote Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.