STATE Vs. MOHD HAFIZ WANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent accused was noticed to have misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,35,716/- from Judicial fine income of the Court of Additional Special Mobile Magistrate Traffic Jammu, as a result whereof case was registered against the accused for commission of offences punishable under Section 409,466,468 RPC. The investigation of the case FIR No.269/90 P/s Pacca Danga Jammu culminated in filing of charge-sheet (challan) before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class which was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge (Principal Sessions Judge Jammu) who assigned the same to the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu.

(2.) While hearing the APP and the counsel for the accused at the stage of framing or otherwise of the charge, an objection was raised by the counsel for the accused that in absence of sanction, the prosecution against the accused could not be launched. Buttressing the submission has contended that the offence punishable under Section 409 RPC is similar to that of the offence falling within the ambit of Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006. The requirement of prior sanction is imperative for taking cognisance of the case. Without obtaining such sanction, challan has been presented. Therefore, the accused could not be put to trial for commission of offence under Section 409 RPC.

(3.) In opposition learned APP had projected before the trial Court that in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in various cases reported in AIR 1957 SC 458, the investigating agency was right in filing final report under Section 173 Cr.PC for the commission of offence under Section 409 RPC, as such sanction was not required.