MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 28 of 2013 (Special Case No. 29 of 2013), including the order dated 20.9.2013, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against the petitioner. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant had completed the work of digging of a pond, estimated cost of which was Rs. 1,37,000/- but he was paid only a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. Rest of Rs. 57,000/- was not paid to the petitioner. When the complainant approached to the petitioner for taking payment, he was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 16,000/- as bribe. The matter was reported to the Vigilance. On verification of the allegation, when it was found to be true, a team was constituted who laid a raid at the time when the money was paid to the petitioner, it was recovered from the pond. On such allegation, a case was registered as Vigilance P.S. Case No. 28 of 2013 for the offences under Section 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On completion of investigation, when charge sheet was submitted after procuring sanction for prosecution, cognizance of the offences as aforesaid was taken vide its order dated 20.9.2013 which is under challenge. Mr. S.N. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Administrative Department of the petitioner happens to be the AHD and Fisheries Department and the Secretary of said Department is the appointing authority, who in terms of the provision, as contained in Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is competent to accord sanction for prosecution but in the instant case, sanction has been accorded by the Secretary, Department of Law (Judicial), Government of Jharkhand, by virtue of the note appended to Rule 53 (1)(c) of the Rules of the Executive Business but that note had been amended which has not been taken into account and therefore, the order granting sanction is illegal and cannot be sustained in the eye of law in view of the decision rendered in a case of State of Goa Vs. Babu Thomas, 2005 8 SCC 130.

(2.) Learned counsel further submits that not only that, order according sanction for prosecution by the Secretary, Department of Law (Judicial) is nullity but it has occasioned prejudice to the petitioner, as he had never taken into account while according sanction of the inquiry report submitted by the Director, Fisheries Department showing work being incomplete and thereby the allegation of the complainant was found to be false and also of the fact that the work could be completed only after the case was lodged and that had the matter been placed before the Secretary AHD and Fisheries Department, he would have considered all these aspects of the matter and under the circumstances, the case of the petitioner has certainly been prejudiced and thereby the order granting sanction warrants to be quashed. The impugned order being bad is fit to be set aside, as the sanctioning authority never seems to have applied its mind and if that is so, it cannot be sustained in view of the decision rendered in a case of State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan, 2007 11 SCC 273.

(3.) As against this, Mr. Jai Prakash, learned A.A.G., appearing on behalf of the State, by referring to Section 19 (3)(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, submits that no finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge warrants to be reversed or altered on the ground that the sanction order issued under sub-section (1) of Section 19 suffers from any irregularity, error or omission unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby, which proposition has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases and recently in a case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Rajmangal Ram, 2014 AIR(SC) 1674.