Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - (1.) BY this criminal revision petition, challenge is made to the order of the trial court taking cognizance of the offence under sections 7, 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') and section 120B IPC. Learned counsel submits that as per section 19 of the Act of 1988, cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 can be taken except with the previous sanction. The so called sanction order produced and considered by the court below for taking cognizance is without producing authority in evidence who had granted sanction. Thus mandate of section 19 has been ignored by the court below while taking cognizance. If the authority is not examined prior to the order of cognizance, then presumption for valid sanction goes against petitioner without cross examination of the authority concerned. This amounts to miscarriage of justice hence, on the aforesaid legal ground itself, order of cognizance deserves to be set aside.
(2.) IT is further stated that if the complaint itself is taken note of, allegation does not exists directly against the petitioner, rather, he has not been assigned any role for commission of offence under the Act of 1988. Reference of the sanction order passed in respect of other accused -Ram Dayal and against the petitioner has been given to show as to what facts have been considered in the complaint. Referring to the sanction order against Ram Dayal, it is stated that allegations are different than later on made out on trap. In view of the above, order of cognizance is not legally tenable. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel and perused the record of the case.
(3.) I find that after investigation in the matter, charge sheet was filed. Order of cognizance was passed thereupon. If the documents referred by the petitioner i.e. sanction order against him and co -accused Ram Dayal are looked into, allegations exist against both of them. So far as revision petitioner is concerned, allegations exist for receipt of Rs. 1000/ - and further demand of Rs. 3000/ - to clear pending bills for payment in regard to supply of paper reams to the Rajasthan High Court. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, allegation aforesaid is against co -accused Raj Dayal. The fact, however, remains that, at this stage, final conclusion of the allegations cannot be drawn otherwise, it would be deciding the case before trial itself. At the time of cognizance, only prima facie case is to be looked into and it has been taken note of by the trial court. Considering the aforesaid aspect, I do not find any illegality in the order taking cognizance. Any comment on the facts to show as to how the petitioner is involved, would cause prejudice to the petitioner himself during course of trial thus, at this premature stage, it would not be proper to comment on the issue to show involvement of the petitioner.;