N. K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 17.8.1998, passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption (Central), U. P. Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1993, State v. R. N. Verma ; R. C. No. 28 (A)/91 CBI/LKO/U/S. 7, 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(2.) I have heard Shri L. P. Shukla, advocate for the revisionist and Shri Bireshwar Nath, for the Central Bureau of Investigation and Shri C. P. M. Tripathi for the State. It appears that the revisionist was working as Head Clerk in the office of the Chief Medical Superintendent (Northern Railway). He was caught red handed at the time of receiving Rs. 100 as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration ; the C.B.I. investigated the matter and submitted the charge-sheet. The sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was given by the Chief Medical Superintendent. The accused-revisionist raised an objection before the trial court that cognizance could not be taken and the trial cannot proceed without valid sanction as required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is as follows : "19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.-(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction : (a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government ; (b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government ; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office. (2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority ; such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby ; (b) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice. (c) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no Court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. (4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings."
(3.) ACCORDING to the aforesaid provisions the authority competent to remove the revisionist can grant sanction for prosecution under the aforesaid Act. On the issue of no valid sanction, Dr. K. G. Mishra, who had granted the sanction was examined before the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption). He has given the statement that he is not the appointing authority of Class-III staff. He has given statement that the appointing authority is the Divisional Personnel Officer but he is senior to the Divisional Personnel Officer in rank. The accused-revisionist challenged this sanction on two grounds ; firstly, that the Chief Medical Superintendent (Northern Railway) Dr. K. G. Mishra was not competent to remove the revisionist and, therefore, he was not legally authorised to grant sanction of prosecution and secondly ; the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind. Both the contentions have been repelled by the learned Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) and he has held that the sanction is legal and valid. It is against this order that this revision has been filed.;