AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 22.08.2015 [Annexure-P-6] passed by the Court of Special Judge, Bhopal in Special case No.02/2013. By the aforesaid order, the trial Court rejected the objection raised by the petitioner in regard to sanction accorded by the competent Authority to prosecute the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Sections 13 (1) (e)/read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and under Sections 109 and 120-B of IPC.
Petitioner was appointed as Civil Engineer in Public Works Department, in the year 1985. He was promoted as Class-I Officer in October, 1995. A raid was conducted by the Income Tax Department on 4th and 5th February, 2010 at the residence of the petitioner at Bhopal. In the aforesaid raid, it was found that the petitioner and his wife both had acquired disproportionate income of Rs.5225898.00. The petitioner and his wife surrendered Rs.35 Lacs to the Income Tax Department.
Special Police Establishment registered a case against the petitioner and conducted the investigation. After investigation, it was found that the income of the petitioner for the check period of October 1995 to 12.12.2010 was Rs.6963468/- and the petitioner and his wife earned total amount of Rs.1,87,40,844.00 hence, the petitioner and his wife earned excess Rs.59,59468.00 from their non- source of income. Consequently, the Lokayukta organization submitted the case to the competent Department to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The Secretary, M.P. Law and Legislative Department vide order dated 24.1.2013 [Annexure-P-1] accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner before the trial Court. The trial Court rejected the application of the petitioner and uphold the order passed by the authority to accord sanction to prosecute the petitioner on the ground that the authority had taken into consideration all the aspects.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the Parent Department of the petitioner i.e. Public Works Department had not considered the case properly neither proper opinion was forwarded to the Law and Legislative Department to accord sanction. The aforesaid Department also did not consider the objections raised by the petitioner at the time of granting sanction hence, the order passed by the Department is against the law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the following judgments of the apex Court.
(i) Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarawal, (2014) 14 SCC 295
(ii) Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2015 SCC Online SC 649.
Counsel for the respondent-Lokayukta Organization has submitted that the competent Authority has considered all the material and after application of mind, proper sanction has been granted by the Department hence, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the following judgments.
(I) Prakash Singh Badal and others vs. State of Punjab and others AIR 2007 SC 1274.
(II) State of M.P. vs. Virendra Kumar Tripathi (2009) 15 SCC 533 (III) State of Bihar vs. Rajmangalram (2014) 11 SCC 388.
It is an admitted fact that sanction to prosecute the petitioner has been accorded by the competent authority i.e. Law and Legislative Department because at that time, Law and Legislative Department was competent to accord sanction. The parent Department i.e. Public Works Department had given its consent to prosecute the petitioner. There is no law which stipulates that the parent Department has to pass a detail order while according and forwarding the case to the competent Authority to grant sanction. In the present case, competent Authority i.e. Law and Legislative Department has perused the record of the case and the file sent by the investigating Agency. The competent Authority further considered in detail the total income which had acquired by the petitioner and his wife. It is also observed by the competent Authority that the petitioner had used his wife and she was made adviser Agent in ICICI prudential Life Insurance in order to show the income whereas, the aforesaid income was of the petitioner himself. At the stage of granting sanction, it is not required that the competent authority has to conduct trial.
The apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarawal, (2014) 14 SCC 295 has laid down the following principle which is in regard to grant of sanction :
"15. Consideration of the material implies application of mind. Therefore, the order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same. If the sanction order on its face indicates that all relevant material i.e. FIR, disclosure statements, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and other materials on record were placed before the sanctioning authority and if it is further discernible from the recital of the sanction order that the sanctioning authority perused all the material, an inference may be drawn that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law. This becomes necessary in case the court is to examine the validity of the order of sanction inter-alia on the ground that the order suffers from the vice of total non-application of mind.(Vide: Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. King, AIR 1949 PC 82; Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 124; Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P., AIR 1979 SC 677; State through Anti-Corruption Bureau, Govt. of Maharashtra v. Krishanchand Khushalchand Jagtiani, 1996(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 ; State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti, 2009(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 861 : 2009(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 605 : (2009) 17 SCC 92; Satyavir Singh Rathi, ACP v. State, 2011(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 805 : 2011(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 418 ; and State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh G. Jain,"
In view of the facts of the case and keeping in mind the law laid down by the apex Court Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarawal, (2014) 14 SCC 295, in our opinion, the competent Authority has considered the material sent by the Lokayukta Organization and the entire evidence collected by the respondent-Lokayukta hence, there is no illegality or irregularity in granting sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The trial Court has also considered all the aspects in detail. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this revision petition. It is hereby dismissed.