STATE OF H P Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State is aggrieved by the order passed by learned Special Judge, Mandi on 11th May, 2010 holding that respondent Ramesh Kumar, who was an official working with Punjab National Bank which is a nationalized bank owned and controlled by the Government comes within the definition of public servant under Section 2 (c)(ix) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which includes employee of such bank. THE court noted that no sanction as required under Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act has been placed on record. It is held that the authority declined to grant prosecution sanction on the ground that the role of the accused was extremely limited which included only preparation of voucher and signing of forwarding letter and the loans were sanctioned by Mr. A.K. Sethi, Branch Manager.. THE Court holds: "18. In view of the matter, it has to be concluded that accused Chandra Sharma cannot be discharged for the alleged commission of offences but accused Ramesh Kumar has to be discharged for the alleged commission of offences because there is lack of valid sanction to prosecute him for alleged commission of offences"

(2.) STATE now challenges this order in revision.

(3.) LEARNED Dy. Advocate General further places reliance upon the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ram Swaroop Rathore versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2000 Cri. L. J. 1882 again on the same provisions. This was also a case where trial commenced and proceeded further.