SHYAM BIHARI BHATT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, through this application, has invoked theextra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, as enshrined under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India for quashing of the order as contained in MemoNo.917 dated 02.07.2007 (Annexure-6), under which sanction for prosecution against the petitioner was accorded by the respondent No.2-The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Agriculture Marketing Board,Pandra, Ranchi.The facts giving rise this application are that while thepetitioner was posted as 'In-charge Marketing Secretary', AgricultureProduce Marketing Committee, Chakulia, one Ganesh Prasad Rungtalodged an FIR against the petitioner, which was registered as VigilanceCase No.35 of 2003 under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the allegation that on 22.11.2003, the petitioner inspected aRice Mill in his absence, being run in the name and style of M/s BhagwatiRice Mill and as such stock register and electricity bill could not be shownto the petitioner. However, the petitioner handed over inspection report tothe staff of the said Mill. When the complainant came to know all about it,he submitted the same before the Marketing Secretary and at thatmoment, the petitioner demanded Rs.30,000/- as illegal gratification witha threat that if the said amount is not paid, he will assess the transaction of the Mill as per stock found in course of physical verification which may go up to Lakhs. When no order was passed in spite of deposit of those documents, the complainant made a complainant before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance to take appropriate action. Uponreceiving the complaint, when verification was made on 09.12.2003, itwas found to be true and accordingly, a raid was laid wherein thepetitioner was trapped while accepting bribe money.

(2.) Thereupon, the casewas registered under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After the investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 05.02.2004 but the court did not take any cognizanceany absence of any order of sanction for prosecution against the petitioner. lt is the case of the petitioner that while the matter was pending before the court below, the petitioner was allocated to Bihar cadre under order dated 13.09.2004 issued by the Government of India.Thereupon, the respondent No.2 vide its order dated 07.12.2005 releasedthe petitioner w.e.f. 12.12.2005 for giving joining before the Bihar StateAgriculture Marketing Board, Patna. Accordingly, the petitioner gave hisjoining on 19.12.2005.

(3.) Thereupon, the petitioner was transferred andposted as Junior Chemical Assistant in the Headquarters of the Board itself under order dated 31.12.2005.Further case is that while the petitioner was discharging hisduty under Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, Patna, therespondent No.2-the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Agricuiture Marketing Board, Ranchi accorded sanction for prosecution against the petitioner vide its order dated 02.07.2007. Thereupon, learned Special Judge, Vigilance, took cognizance of the offence under Section 7/ 13(2)read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide its order dated 06.072007 (Annexure-7).Being aggrieved with the order taking cognizance and also with the order under which sanction for prosecution was accorded, thiswrit application has been filed.