DR. PANCHANAND PRASAD (SON OF LATE SHRI MAHADEO LAL DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMANAKABAD, P.S. HAVELI KHARAGPUR, DISTRICT MUNGER) Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel of the Vigilance.

(2.) At an earlier occasion while the petitioner/accused had approached the Honourable Apex Court under SLP (Criminal) No. 9300/2012, the same was dismissed on 24.02.2015, however, the question with regard to sanction was directed to be remained open and under the guise of aforesaid latitude, petitioner has prayed for discharge before the learned lower court advancing his plea that the Law Department, which had issued the sanction, is not at all competent one, no material was available before the concerned authority which could have justified the process of sanction and further, the Law Department neither happens to be Appointing Authority nor Dismissing Authority. Therefore, sanction is defective one whereupon no prosecution could survive as proper sanction is sine qua non for pro valid prosecution. To substantiate such plea, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon principle laid down by this Court under Cr. Misc. No. 44151/2008 as well as Cr. Misc. No.18584/2010, though the orders of aforesaid Cr. Miscellaneous neither being annexed with brief nor have been placed during course of argument.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, during course of argument has also placed short notes which substantiates his plea whatever been advanced during course of his argument. It has also been pleaded as is evident from the notes of argument that the defect so pointed out at an earlier occasion could be rectified and followed with issuance of fresh sanction and on account thereof, subsequent prosecution is permissible. However, till subsistence of aforesaid defect, further proceeding is forbidden which ultimately should be directed to conclude by way of discharge of the accused.