A K GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision case has been filed by the first accused, among the three, against the order dated 21.08.2003 made in Crl. M.P.No.91 of 2003 in C.C. No.5 of 2000 by the Court of the learned X Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, thereby dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) Tracing the history of the case, it comes to be known that the petitioner, who was a Major General in the Indian Army, and two others, viz., the second accused Lt. Colonel and the third accused being a Company, have been charged by the respondent/CBI for having entered into a criminal conspiracy during the period October 1987 - February 1988 in Madras and other places and cheated the Government of India in respect of placing orders for the supply of 'Meat Tinned Kheema' from M/s. Costa and Company, and the petitioner and the second accused, in abuse of their position as public servants, caused pecuniary advantage to the third accused company fraudulently and dishonestly, thereby causing a loss of Rs.61,19,541-23 to the Exchequer in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy and the petitioner, knowing full well that there are sufficient stocks of Meat Tinned Khemma for the troops in Sri Lanka, issued oral orders to the second accused on 4.2.1988 to go in for the local purchase with the third accused company and the second accused carried out the orders and the third accused company prepared false records for the supply of Meat Tinned Khemma and thus, the petitioner and the other two accused have committed an offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC and Section 5(2) r/w. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

(3.) While such being the position, the petitioner/first accused has filed a petition under Section 204 Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge him from the said case on certain grounds such as that in the evidence of P.W.1, while adducing evidence and marking Ex.P.1 sanction order, it is not disclosed whether the authority had applied its mind; that P.W.1 only stated that he authenticated the sanction order and that the same was not accorded as per Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but was granted as per Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; that the said witness deposed differently; that therefore, the prosecution has elicited that some other records have been considered during the process of sanction, which have not been mentioned in the sanction order and that the file maintained in the Ministry pertaining to the sanction proceedings has also been not placed before the Court, and therefore, there is no material for application of mind by the sanctioning authority and hence, the trial cannot continue further.