QUASIM ANSARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 8th January, 2003 of the learned Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation, South Bihar, Patna passed in Special Case No. 9 of 2000 whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter, in short, referred to as the Act 1988), corresponding to Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as the Act 1947) has been taken up.

(2.) THIS is admitted position in this case that cognizance has been taken without any sanction obtained from the authority competent to remove the petitioner from his office which is said to have been abused by the petitioner and which abuse is said have constituted the offence for which cognizance has been taken up.

(3.) THE relevant facts of the case are as follows : The First Information Report of the case was registered at Patna Branch of SPE/CBI on 19th September, 2000 on some information that the petitioner, while functioning as Inspector of Central Excise and Customs, Patna and subsequently as Superintendent in the same Department under Patna Collectorate during the period 1981 to 1999 amassed huge wealth allegedly disproportionate to the known source of his income to the tune of Rs. 6.2 lacs approximately. On submission of the charge -sheet, the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence, vide the impugned order dated 8th January, 2003 without any sanction from the authority competent to remove the petitioner from service, as required under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act 1988. After taking cognizance of the offence, issuance of summons against the petitioner -accused for putting him on trial was also ordered. It is the very order dated 8th January, 2003 of the learned Special Judge taking cognizance of the offence, which is challenged under the instant petition on the ground that the order is ab initio void as no sanction for prosecution was obtained from the authority competent to remove the petitioner from his office as required under Section 19(l)(c) of the Act 1988. Some other relevant facts, as mentioned in the petitioners petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Inspector in the Department of Excise and Customs, Government of India at Patna on 7th December, 1976 and subsequently, he was promoted to the rank of Superintendent, Central Excise and Customs, Patna, vide Establishment order No. 193/93 dated 10th August, 1993 (Annexure -4). Petitioner was served with a departmental chargesheet dated 3rd May, 1999 (Annexure -5) alleging unauthorised absence from duties for 19. days. A departmental enquiry proceeded and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 10th November, 1999 (Annexure -6) that all the charges, levelled against the petitioner were not proved.