DARSHAN LAL ARORA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these revision petitions are being disposed of by a common order since they involve the same set of facts and question of law. The petitioners herein have been charged under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of IPC.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners urges that since sanction for prosecution has been refused by the State, no charge could have been framed. Learned Deputy Advocate General contends that this point can be urged at the conclusion of the trial. This is against the very mandate of the statute and the submission cannot be accepted.

(3.) On the question of sanction, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai and Others, 2009 8 SCC 617, the Supreme Court holds:-