KISHORE CHANDRA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA (VIGILANCE)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which needs determination in this Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is as to whether cognizance of offences under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 should be quashed where there is dispute with regard to the validity of the sanction for prosecution against a public servant.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY on the basis of a prosecution report submitted by the Inspector of Vigilance, Central Division, Cuttack as long back as on 19th June, 1990 Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.37 of 1990 was registered against the petitioner which was subsequently registered as T.R. No.10 of 1994 in the Court of the Special Judge, Bhubaneswar. According to the petitioner, after completion of investigation the materials collected against him were placed before the Chairman, SPINFED, the employer of the petitioner for according sanction to launch prosecution. The said authority on a scrutiny of the materials produced before him refused to accord sanction observing that the investigation was incomplete. After lapse of four months, it is alleged that the investigating officer once again plead the materials before the successor Chairman and the latter mechanically accorded sanction for prosecution on 27th July, 1993. Thereafter the investigating officer submitted charge -sheet against the petitioner and the Court below took cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioner as stated above and directed issuance of processes against him.

(3.) MR . Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, forcefully submitted that the Court below lost sight of the fact that in absence of fresh materials, sanction for prosecution accorded by the successor Chairman, when his predecessor had refused, was illegal and invalid and, as such, the Court below ought to have refused to take cognizance. Relying upon the decision in the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State, reported in 1996 Cri.L.J 4424, Mr. Mukherjee forcefully submitted that once an order refusing sanction is passed after taking into consideration the entire materials available on record and on being satisfied that no prima facie case was made out, a review of the said order was illegal and unjust. He further contended that after the transfer of the Chairman of SPINFED who had applied his mind and had refused to accord sanction, the prosecuting agency in a camouflage way once again sought sanction by approaching the successor Chairman on the basis of the same materials. The latter, it is alleged, without applying his mind to the materials and without realizing the fact that his predecessor had refused to accord sanction, mechanically accorded sanction and the said order being a nullity in the eye of law, the trial Court thus committed illegality and irregularity in taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioner.