Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (1.) THE order dated 29.01.2004 passed by the learned Judge (Special) C.B.I. Court, Siliguri in Special R.C. Case No. 3/13 pending before the learned Judge, (Special) C.B.I. Court, Siliguri refusing to discharge the petitioner has been assailed.
(2.) THE prosecution case as alleged is as follows: - The informant applied for Group -D post in the Eastern Railway; he qualified in written examination and physical tests; his medical tests were scheduled to take place on 12.02.2013; due to postal delay, he received the letter for medical test on the scheduled day itself i.e. 12.02.2013; hence, he could not appear before the Medical Board for examination on the scheduled date; the candidate met DRM (Divisional Railway Manager) on 14.02.2013 for the refixation of his medical test; his medical test was re -scheduled to be held on 19.02.2013; on 18.02.2013 visited Malda Town Railway Hospital to equip himself about the procedures of medical test and came to know from some staffs involved in medical tests were taking bribe from aspiring candidates; other candidates also corroborated such version and pointed out one Madhab Chandra Das who indulged in such corrupt practices; the candidate met said Madhab Chandra Das who told him that unless the latter paid Rs. 1,000/ - to Madhav he will not be declared medically fit; informant decided not to pay the bribe and resorted to legal action; he lodged a written complaint on 18.02.2013 to Mananiya Police Adhikshak, C.B.I., Kolkata, on the basis of said complainant; Shri S. Agnihotri, S.P., C.B.I., ACB, Kolkata registered a case and endorsed it to Sri Shantanu Kar, Additional S.P. of Police, CBI, CAB, Kolkata for investigation; in course of such investigation, a trap was laid against unknown public servants at Malda Town Divisional Railway Hospital on 19.02.2013; pursuant to such trap the petitioner who was then posted as Senior Divisional Medical Officer at Malda Town Railway Hospital and the aforesaid Madhab Chandra Das were intercepted for taking bribe and arrested. In conclusion of investigation, charge -sheet was filed before the learned Judge. Admittedly sanction order in respect of the petitioner did not accompany the charge -sheet. In the absence of order of sanction against the petitioner the learned Judge declined to take cognizance on the aforesaid police report. Thereafter sanction order was filed before the learned Judge and the latter took cognizance of the alleged offences on 17.07.2013. Prayer for discharge was made before the learned Judge, inter alia, on the ground that the sanction order having not accompanied the charge -sheet, the Trial Court was incompetent to entertain the case. Learned Judge by impugned order dated 29.01.2004 dismissed such plea on the ground that the cognizance of the alleged offences were taken only after the sanction order had been placed before the Court and hence the proceeding did not suffer from any lack of jurisdiction. It was also pleaded that no opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner prior to grant of such sanction. Such plea was also turned down on the premise that the order granting sanction is an executive action which does not call for an opportunity of hearing. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned proceeding including the impugned order passed therein refusing to discharge him from the case.
(3.) MR . Basu, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the police report in the instant case was not prepared and signed by the Superintendent of Police as required under paragraph 19.15 of the C.B.I. Manual. He submits that failure to do so rendered the police report invalid in law in as much as the same is required to be prepared and signed personally by the Superintendent of Police himself. He relied on : (2007)1 SCC 110 (M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) vs. Union of India & Ors.) in support of such submission. He further submitted that sanction order was also invalid inasmuch as there was no materials were produced before the learned Judge that the procedure for sanction as laid down in paragraph 22.15 of the C.B.I. Manual had been adhered to.;