PREM LATA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Misc. No. 3783 of 2010 has been filed challenging the order dated 12.09.2006 taking cognizance for the offences under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Cr. Misc. No. 4016 of 2010 has been filed challenging the order dated 02.07.2009 refusing to discharge the petitioner under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The aforesaid orders have been passed in Special Case No. 13 of 2004 (Vigilance Police Station Case No. 10 of 2004) by the Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna.

(2.) Counsel for the Vigilance Department supports the order of sanction by referring to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and submits that what is required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is an order to show that the authority concerned has applied its mind to the offences alleged and has come to a conclusion that the incumbent should be prosecuted for having committed the offences under Sections 7, 10, 11 and 13 or 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to the Counsel for the Vigilance Department, the impugned order indicates that the sanctioning authority was aware that the petitioner was to be prosecuted under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The fact that Section 197 of the Indian Penal Code has been mentioned in the sanctioning order is immaterial as per the submissions made by the Counsel for the Vigilance Department.

(3.) In my opinion, the very fact that the sanctioning authority i.e. the Secretary of the Law Department has passed an order granting sanction for prosecuting under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 197 of the Indian Penal Code shows complete non-application of mind. It appears that the sanctioning authority is not even aware of the difference between Section 197 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the range of offences which covers both the sections.