KHETRABASI SAHU Vs. STATE (G.A. DEPARTMENT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'), the Petitioner, who is an accused in T.R. Case No. 478 of 2007/51 of 1990 pending before the Learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Balasore, has sought for quashing the said criminal proceeding against him.

(2.) Prosecution alleges that in the year 1988, the Petitioner was posted as a Junior Clerk in the office of the Inspector of Schools, Keonjhar. He demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 100/ from the complainant, a L.I.C. Agent, for effecting deduction from the premium of some teachers in private schools, whose pay bills were being passed by the Inspector of Schools. On such complaint being made, a trap was made on 5.9.1988 in course of which tainted notes were recovered from the shirt pocket of the Petitioner.

(3.) The Petitioner alleges that after completion of the investigation, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, B.D. Cuttack wrote to the Inspector of Schools, Keonjhar Circle for according sanction as required under Sec. 19 (1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Inspector of Schools, Keonjhar in his letter dated 21.6.1989 refused to accord sanction and, instead, suggested for dropping the criminal prosecution and to deal with the matter departmentally. The Inspector of Schools was the authority competent in law to accord sanction. However, the Investigating Agency moved the Director of Public Instruction, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, suppressing the fact of refusal of sanction by the Inspector of Schools. The Director without being aware of the fact of refusal of sanction by the competent authority, accorded sanction and on the basis of the said sanction, prosecution was launched against the Petitioner. The Petitioner alleges that certain letters were called for after the Investigation Officer, P.W. 11 was examined in Court. The said P.W. 11 was recalled for further cross -examination and during such further cross -examination, he has admitted the fact that sanction was refused by the competent authority, i.e., the Inspector of Schools. P.W. 5 was examined who proved the sanction order Ext. 22 and there is nothing in his evidence to show that the Director was aware of the fact of refusal of sanction by the Inspector of Schools.