KOUTA MARKANDEYULU Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar, allowing a petition under S.311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) and permitting the prosecution to examine the authority sanctioning the prosecution.

(2.) On the basis of the F.I.R dated 9-8-1979 lodged by an Inspector of C.B.I. and after due investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner, ex-Branch Manager, United Commercial Bank, Narasingpur, on 26-4-1980 for having committed misappropriation of cash of Rs. 7000/-. He was charged for having committed offences under Ss.5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) read with S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The trial commenced on 28-4-1982 and in due course 14 witness were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 15 documents were proved and exhibited Prosecution was closed on 25-9-1984, accused's statement was recorded on 21-1-1985 and arguments of both the parties were finally heard and closed on 25-3-1985. During argument it was submitted by the learned defence counsel that the order of sanction under S.6 of the Act was not proved and the aforesaid technical defect was one of the grounds for which the petitioner was entitled to be acquitted. After close of the arguments, though on the same day, the prosecution filed a petition under S.311 of the Code for examination of the sanctioning authority and for proving of the sanction order. The petitioner filed an objection that the court could not permit the prosecution to examine the sanctioning authority and prove the sanction order so as to fill up its lacuna. The learned Judge after hearing both parties passed the impugned order allowing the petition.

(3.) Mr. B.S. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged that after a protracted trial and after close of arguments it was unjust on the part of the learned Judge to permit the prosecution to fill up its lacuna by examining the sanctioning authority so as to prove the sanction order. He further urged that on behalf of the defence no new material was brought in so as to enable the prosecution to meet the same by taking recourse to the provisions of S.311 of the Code. In such circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.