Alok Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is assailing the order dated 10.11.2008 whereby the learned Special Judge (C.B.I.) has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 7 and 13 (2) read with Sections 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and order dated 23.04.2011, whereby learned Special (C.B.I.) has dismissed the application of the petitioner seeking discharge. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that the petitioner demanded bribe from Sri Gopal Prasad Sinha to clear his bill. Sri Gopal Prasad Sinha approached the C.B.I., Ranchi. After discreet enquiry on the allegation made by Sri Gopal Prasad Sinha an F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner on 09.07.2008. A trap was organized and the petitioner/ accused was caught red handed accepting bribe of Rs. 2500/ -. C.B.I. sought sanction from M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited to prosecute the petitioner. General Manager, B.C.C. Ltd., Sijua Area accorded sanction vide order dated 22.09.2008 (Annexure -7). Thereafter, C.B.I. has submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under section 7 and 13 (2) read with Sections 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(2.) THE learned Special Judge, C.B.I. vide order dated 10.11.2008 pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application seeking discharge. Application seeking discharge was dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.4.2011. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.
(3.) MR . Baban Lal, learned Sr. Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submits that he is assailing impugned order on the sole ground that sanction was grated by the General Manager, who was not at all competent to grant sanction. He has vehemently argued that the appointing authority is Managing Director -cum -Chairman of the Company. Therefore, sanction could only be accorded by the Chairman -cum - Managing Director as required under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mr. Baban Lal, learned Sr. Advocate has further submitted that no power could have been delegated to the General Manager by the Chairman -cum - Managing Director for the removal, termination and award of punishment of the employee. He has further contended that only Board of Directors, by the valid resolution of the Company, could have given power to the General Manager, therefore, delegation of power by the Chairman -cum - Managing Director of the Company in favour of the General Manager to exercise the power in the disciplinary actions vide order dated 31.5.1998, Annexure -16 to the petition, is totally without jurisdiction. Consequently order of sanction dated 22.9.2008 by the General Manager of Sijua Area is also without jurisdiction. Mr. Baban Lal, learned Sr. Advocate in support of his argument has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. N.C. Tandon, reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1793, in the case of the Management of D.T.U. Versus Shri B.B.L. Hajelay and another, reported in : (1972) 2 SCC 744 as well as on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in the case of Md. Quasim Ansari Versus State of Bihar & Anr. reported in, 2003 (3) East Cr.C. 139 (Pat).;