SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) PETITIONER Manohar Lal Soni, who is facing trial in case FIR No. 62 dated 9.6.1993 registered at Police Station City Ferozepur under Sections 7, 13(2) 88 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 12.11.2003, passed by Special Judge, Ferozepur, whereby application filed by the petitioner for dropping the criminal proceedings and discharging him on the ground that the sanction granted by the Managing Director for his prosecution is not proper and valid sanction in the eyes of law, has been dismissed, while holding that the proceedings cannot be dropped at this stage, when the prosecution is yet to lead evidence. However, it has been observed that the grounds taken by the petitioner in the application shall be kept open to be decided after conclusion of evidence by the prosecution.
(2.) I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was an employee of the Punjab State Co-operative House Building Societies registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and at the time of the alleged occurrence, he was posted as Area Manager, Housefed, at Ferozepur. Counsel contends that in this case, the sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was granted by the Managing Director without getting approval from the Administrative Committee. While referring to the decision of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 18970 of 2001, Tarsem Lal v. The Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others, Annexure P-6, counsel for the petitioner submits that the sanction granted by the Managing Director without approval from the Administrative Committee is not proper and valid, therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be dropped for want of proper and valid sanction. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Goa v. Babu Thomas, 2005(4) RCR(Criminal) 349, wherein it was held that sanction for prosecution of a public servant granted by an authority which was not competent is not a valid sanction and on such invalid sanction cognizance of the alleged offence cannot be taken.
(3.) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. The question whether the sanction was granted by the competent authority i.e. by the Managing Director with approval of the Administrative Committee is a question of fact, which will be established by the prosecution during the course of evidence, which is yet to be recorded. Thus, at this stage, in my opinion, the trial Court has rightly declined to consider the prayer of the petitioner and the matter has been kept open to be decided after conclusion of evidence. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Romesh Lal Jain v. Naginder Singh Rana and others, 2005(4) RCR(Crl.) 835 : 2005(3) Apex Criminal 533 : 2006(1) SCC 294 has held that the plea relating to want of sanction, though desirably should be considered at an early stage of the proceedings, can be considered at a later stage, even after the witnesses are examined. Each case has to be considered on its own facts and circumstances and no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in this regard. In this case, according to the prosecution, the sanction was granted by the competent authority. The contention of the petitioner is that the sanction is not valid as it was not granted after getting approval from the Administrative Committee. The question as to whether the sanction was granted by the competent authority after due approval or not, is a matter of evidence. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Petition dismissed.;