HARENDRA NATH BHUYAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Section 482, Cr. PC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 9. 12. 2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam in Special Case No. 4 (A)/2001. By the aforesaid order dated 9. 12. 2004 the learned Special has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for dropping the case for want of proper sanction under Section 197, Cr. PC and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the P. C. Act ).

(2.) I have heard Mr. P. G. Baruah, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Munir, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the respondent.

(3.) IN course of argument Mr. P. G. Baruah, learned senior counsel, has mainly submitted that the sanction for prosecution to prosecute the accused petitioner issued vide order dated 17. 8. 1999 (Annexure-2 to the petition) is without proper application of mind. It has further been submitted that before passing the aforesaid sanction order to prosecute the accused petitioner and others, necessary materials were not produced before the Governor for taking proper decision in accordance with law. Accordingly, it is submitted that the aforesaid sanction order is vitiated for want of non-application of mind. Referring to Section 19 of the P. C. Act, it was pointed out by Mr. Baruah that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction of the concerned authority. Accordingly, as the sanction order dated 17. 8. 1999 having been issued without proper application of mind, it is void and not a sanction in the eye of law and, as such, cognizance cannot be taken by the learned Special Judge to try the petitioner. In support of his argument, Mr. Baruah has referred to the following decisions :