ARUN KRISHNARAO HAZARE Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
ARUN KRISHNARAO HAZARE
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Click here to view full judgement.
T.P. Sharma, J. -
(1.)THIS petition is directed against the order dated 17-9-2008 passed by the Special Judge (CBI Cases), Raipur in Special Case No. 4/2007 whereby learned Special Judge has dismissed the objection/application filed on behalf of the applicant for acquittal on the ground that sanction for prosecution is not in accordance with law.
(2.)THE order impugned is challenged on the ground that the applicant who is a public servant is protected in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and without any legal and proper sanction the Court is not competent to take cognizance of the offence alleged against him, and the applicant may raise the ground relating to competency of sanction at any stage even after framing of charge. Thus, the Court has committed illegality by not considering the application which the applicant has filed after framing of charge.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned, copy of the alleged sanction order, copy of the statement of the Sanctioning Authority recorded by the Special Court, copies of other documents especially Annexure P-12, dated 16-5-2006 written by the SECL to the complainant & Annexure P-13, dated 10-8-2006 written by the Staff Officer (Civil), Dipka Area to the complainant relating to black topping of coal tipper road including maintenance for three years from CHP BSES junction of Dipka Expansion Project to Dy. GM Office, Gevra Project in Gevra Area.
(3.)MR. R.P. Joshi, learned Counsel for the applicant, submits that the applicant was posted as General Manager (Civil) in SECL, Bilaspur, a trap case against the applicant has been registered by the CBI vide Crime No. RC0092006A0013 and investigated. Finally charge-sheet has been tiled before the Special Judge (CBI Cases), Raipur. The applicant is facing trial for offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. For taking cognizance of the offence alleged against the applicant sanction for prosecution is sine qua non in accordance with Section 19 of the Act. The prosecution is required to show prima facie by placing material that the entire material has been placed before the Sanctioning Authority for according sanction and after examining the material so placed and after application of mind & subjective satisfaction, the Sanctioning Authority has accorded sanction for prosecution against the applicant. MR. R.P. Joshi further submits that sanction for prosecution is not a mere formality and the Sanctioning Authority after examining the material may accord sanction or may refuse sanction to prosecute the public servant for the offence of corruption.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.