STATE Vs. BISHAN DASS SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents who were alleged to be guilty of the offences punishable u/Ss. 420/467/468/471/120-B, R.P.C. and S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (for short, P.C . Act), were discharged by the court below on the ground of there not being a valid sanction for their prosecution. It is submitted that the judgment of the trial court is against law, facts and record of the case which is required to be set aside.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) The record reveals that vide Govt. order No. 491-Home (Vig) of 1987 dated 28-10-1987, sanction was accorded to the prosecution of the respondents for offences referred to hereinabove. The aforesaid Govt. order was, however, signed by an Under Secretary to Government, Home Department (Vigilance). The trial Court, held that the Revenue Department and the administrative department of the accused could only be treated as government for the purposes of their removal from office and to sanction the prosecution. The Home Department was not their administrative department for the purposes of granting the sanction. The trial court relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1984 SC 684 : (1984 Cri LJ 613) wherein it was held that grant of sanction is not an idle formality but a solemn and sacrosanct act which removes the umbrella of protection of government servants against frivolous prosecution and that requirement must be strictly complied with before any prosecution could be launched against public servants. Section 6 of the P.C. Act, 2006, provides :