- (1.) The petitioners who are accused 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 14 seek for quashing of the proceedings in CC No. 12 of 1999 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam and also the proceedings in Rc. No. 20(A)/95, dated 5-12-1995 by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under S. 482, Cr. P.C.
(2.) A brief resume of background of facts is necessary for appreciation of the case. The Inspector of Police SPE and CBI, Vishakha-patnam, chargesheeted the petitioners and some others in respect of four purchase orders which led to loss to the tune of Rs. 3,44,800/-. They are charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 477(A) of, IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The same was numbered as CC No. 12 of 1999 on the file of Special Judge for CBI Cases. Vishakha-patnam. During the pendency of the petition, they filed Crl. M.Ps. 124 and 125 of 2000 in C.C. 12 of 1999 seeking for discharge and also for summoning the documents from the prosecuting agency for not obtaining the sanction within the period of three months from the concerned authority. The learned Special Judge for CBI Cases dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions. Aggrieved by the same, they carried the matter in revision to this Court in Crl R.C. No. 512 of 2000. It was disposed of by my learned brother, Justice T.Ch. Surya Rao, by order dated 6-6-2000, the relevant portion of which is extracted below : "The petitioners seek to summon the documents ultimately to show that the sanction order has not been issued by the Competent Authority within three months from the date on which papers have been placed for its perusal and for application of its mind. When the petitioners are now challenging that it has not been issued within three months, it is for the prosecution to show by any cogent evidence that it has been issued within three months or if it chooses so to convince the Court that notwithstanding that it has not been issued within three months, still the sanction order cannot be said to be vitiated, in view of Section 19, clause (4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Another aspect to be addressed is about the maintainability of the revision, as against an order passed in an interlocutory application. The very maintainability of the revision is itself in doubt since it cannot be said that it is a final order or an order in the nature of intermediary, in accordance with the tests laid down by the Apex Court in Amarnath's case. Let it be clarified that since the petitioners are assailing the very sanction order any decision to be given by the Court on that will have the effect of affecting the initial cognizance taken by the Court. Therefore it is open to the petitioners to question the same at any stage since it goes to the root of the matter. For the foregoing reasons, this Revision case is dismissed in the light of the observations made supra in the order." Thereafter, the petitioners have invoked the inherent power vested under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. for quashing of the proceedings.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. M. V. Raja Ram, assails the proceedings on the ground that sanction was not obtained within three months as contemplated under the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889. The petitioners have sought for quashing of the proceedings on the ground of invalidity of obtaining sanction.;