SHUSHIL BHANOT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONTROVERSY in this revision petition lies in a narrow compass.

(2.) THE petitioners are being tried by Special Judge, Anti corruption Jammu, for offences, amongst others, under section 161 R. P. C. and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 hereinafter to be referred to as the Act Out of them only the second and the third petitioner, namely, Kikar Singh and Swami Raj are Government employees, sanction to prosecute whom for the aforesaid offences in terms of Section 6 of the Act, has been granted by the Government vide its order No : 441 -O&M/VIG of 1979 dated 25 -11 -1679. The petitioners have challenged the competency of the Special Judge to try them on two grounds: one that the trial is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as, another Government employee namely, N. N. Hira, against whom also the allegations were equally grave has been dropped, and two, that sanction to prosecute the petitioner has not been given by a competent authority, inasmuch as, these respondents being removable from office the by Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department. Jammu, the Government had no power to accord sanction for their prosecution in terms of Cl. (b) of section 6 of the Act.

(3.) THE first ground of violation of Article 14, it may be stated is utterly misconceived and is, therefore, rejected. What dissuaded the authority from granting sanction to the prosecution of N. N. Hira is not clear from the record. Whether or not he deserved to be Prosecuted depended upon the nature of the evidence collected against him during the investigation. In case the evidence against him was of a weaker type, he could not be said to be similarly situated with the others, namely, the petitioners, to attract the provisions of Article 14.