PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND ANDAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 19-7-2001, whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge, Vigilance took cognizance for the offence under S. 7-B(2) read with S. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in connection with Ranchi Sadar Vigilance PS Case No. 7 of 2001 (Special Case No. 11 of 2001).

(2.) The prosecution case in brief as stated that one Md. Taslim made an allegation against the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner being a Motor Vehicle Inspector as making illegal demand of Rs. 5000.00 for giving report of the vehicle in his favour but later on he agreed to give the report only on receipt of Rs. 2000.00. Thereafter the informant made a complaint in Vigilance Department against the petitioner with regard to his illegal demand and accordingly a raiding party was organised and thereafter the petitioner was apprehended as well as currency of note was also recovered from the pocket of the petitioner. Accordingly, the case was registered.

(3.) After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in the case and the Special Judge after perusing the case diary and other documents including the sanction took cognizance for the offence by order dated 19-7-2001. Hence, this application. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly advanced his argument on the point of sanction and it is submitted that in the present case no proper sanction order has been issued by the authority concerned and the learned Court below took cognizance mechanically without appreciating the legal position of sanction order. It is further submitted that the sanction order has been issued by the sanctioning authority only on the basis of the request letter of the prosecution but the prosecution has never sent the entire materials and statement collected/recorded during the investigation to the sanctioning authority and the sanctioning authority without applying his mind granted sanction, which is not in accordance with law. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a Gazetted Officer and his appointing authority is the Hon'ble Governor of the State and so the sanction obtained from the Secretary Transport Department of Jharkhand and is not proper and valid. The learned counsel also relied upon a case reported in 1998 SCC (Cr) 1000 (State of Tamil Nadu v. M. M. Rajendran).