ARUN SAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned Standing Counsel, C.B.I.

(2.) This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 31.08.2006 issued by the Director General, Council for Advancement of People's Action and Rural Technology, New Delhi (for short CAPART) whereby sanction has been accorded under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecution of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in connection with R.C. No.22(A)/ 2005 (Special Case No.25/ 2005).

(3.) Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned dated 31.08.2006 was passed by the authority, who is not competent to remove the petitioner from office. He contended that as per the CAPART Bye-Laws, it is the Executive Committee and not the Director General, CAPART, who could have accorded sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. According to him, the grant of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner by the then Director General, who was not the appropriate or the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution has resulted into failure of justice. Further, in view of non-appreciation of the fact that the petitioner has not performed any act, which is in violation of CAPART rules and guidelines yet is being proceeded with and is facing the rigors of trial due to perfunctory and superficial investigation, the continuation of his trial before the Court against him in absence of a valid sanction would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.