Sanction for prosecution u/s 13(1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988 is a must.

The sole petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.19 of 2013. He seeks for quashment of C.C.No.19 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad against him for the offences under Section 409 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the P.C.Act, for short).

2. Before going into the question whether C.C.No.19 of 2013 deserves to be quashed or otherwise, I may answer the question whether the petitioner should be directed to approach the Trial Court and seek for the relief of discharge. In PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY v. KOVVURI SATYANARAYANA REDDY, the Supreme Court noticed:

13. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code [vide Kavita v. State (2000 Cri LJ 315 (Del)) and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 4 SCC 675)]. If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.

Therefore, when the petitioner has the alternative remedy of approaching the Trial Court for discharge, is it necessary to entertain this application ?

3. In Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court referred to PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY (1 supra) and observed that filing of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C before framing of the charges or before discharge application was filed or even during the pendency of the case before the Court concerned is not prohibited and that the High Court cannot reject a petition for quashment merely on the ground that the accused could argue legal and factual issues at the time of framing of the charges. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that when there is some substance in the allegations and material exists to substantiate complicity of the petitioner, the full conspectus of the case should be examined before the Trial Court. Therefore, whether there is any substance in the allegations deserves to be examined in this case. That apart, legal pleas have been raised by Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner regarding the very maintainability of the complaint. Consequently, this petition is disposed of on merits.

4. The petitioner was appointed as a Civil Supervisor in the Fisheries Corporation in 1978. He was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer (DEE, for short) in 1989; and was promoted as Executive Engineer (EE, for short) in the year 1992. Between 1995 and 2012, the petitioner was deputed to work in a Public Sector Undertaking, Kakinada under the Fisheries Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

5. ESI Corporation, New Delhi, entrusted its civil works to Andhra Pradesh Fisheries Department. An agreement was drawn between ESI Corporation and the Andhra Pradesh Fisheries Department. It is the case of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI, for short) that the petitioner, as the EE of the A.P. Fisheries Department opened accounts in the State Bank of India and Corporation Bank. The petitioner allegedly entrusted the construction work to a local Civil Contractor. Certain amounts were allegedly released by ESI Corporation. The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.One Crore with the Corporation Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch, Hyderabad. Similarly, cheques for Rs.1.26 Crores issued in the name of the EE, Fisheries Department were encashed by the petitioner albeit the works entrusted at Visakhapatnam and Vijayawada were not carried out. Thus far, there is no dispute.

6. It is alleged by the prosecution that an amount of Rs.56,283/- and another amount of Rs.35,069/- were deposited by the petitioner in the Bank of Maharashtra, Khairatabad Branch, Hyderabad in his personal accounts when he received the cheques for the said amount