- (1.) The State of Gujarat is in appeal against the judgments of the Gujarat High Court in these appeals. Whereas in Criminal Appeal No. 601 of 1997, judgment in its entirety has been challenged as totally without jurisdiction, Criminal Appeal No. 602 of 1997, however, is having a limited challenge and the main grievance pertains to certain directions. For convenience sake, Criminal Appeal No. 602 of 1997 is taken up first for hearing.
(2.) Mr. K. N. Raval, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India contended that the directions contained at para 26.1 at 68-69 of the paper-book, in particular the last few lines, are not only unwarranted, but wholly without jurisdiction. For convenience sake, the same is set out hereinbelow : ...... In fact, after registering the offence, sanction must be obtained within one month or at the most within two months, and thereafter, the charge-sheet should be filed within fifteen days. If in roundabout three months the charge-sheet is not filed, Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau should call for necessary explanation and take appropriate departmental action against the investigation officer concerned and also must request the departmental head concerned to grant sanction immediately. The sanctioning authority concerned from the date of the receipt of papers shall grant sanction within two months failing which he would be liable for the contempt proceedings of this Court in absence of reasonable explanation. It will also be a duty of the trial Court to see that if it comes across any belated granting of sanction, and thereafter, filing of the charge-sheet, appropriate observations are made against the officials concerned by forwarding a copy of his judgment and order at the highest to secretary level. Incidentally, it may also be stated that some of the learned P.Ps. in charge of corruption case do not cite judgment of this Court and Apex Court in favour of the prosecution. This is too sad! ...
(3.) The learned Additional Solicitor General highlighting the initiation of contempt proceedings in the absence of reasonable explanation from the sanctioning authority in the event of there being a delay of two months, contended that judicial proceedings ought not to prompt the judicial officers to apprehend things and pass orders on apprehensions. It has further been contended that as a matter of fact adaptation of procedure as above would not only denigrate the judiciary itself but the confidence reposed by the people to the judiciary would be shaken and resultantly a total anarchy in the judicial system.;