Back
2018 Supreme(Chh) 395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
GOUTAM BHADURI, J.
Gorelal Thakur, S/o. Late Ramadhin Singh Thakur - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Additional Director General of Police and Ors - Respondent
W.P.(CR) No. 302 of 2017
Decided on : 07-08-2018
Subject
Criminal Law - Corruption
Act Referred
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.13(2), S.13(1)(e), S.17, S.19, S.19(1)(c)
Headnote
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e), 17 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 154 - Challenged Petition to quash the Criminal Prosecution - Department of Tourism - Tourism Board to Grant a Sanction - Sanction for Prosecution - Petitioner initially worked his services were transfered to Chhattisgarh Tourism Board wherein he worked there up till 2014 and subsequently was absorbed and thereafter he was sent on deputation to Indira Gandhi Agriculture University prosecution was lodged. It is contended that the allegation of committing the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, 1988, check period has been shown and during this period the petitioner had worked in three Departments. It is stated that petitioner was not in job and the reference was made to Annexure P-15 and it was stated that when the petitioner was private person not in any job his property could not have been taken into consideration to prosecute – Held, If provisions are looked into it lays down that sanction can be given for prosecution under the P.C. Act when the authority was competent to remove and the sanction can be granted, petitioner having absorbed in the Tourism Department, the petitioner could have been removed by the authority i.e. Managing Director. This can also be looked from the other angle. If a particular person passes through different departments on deputation or otherwise and during such tenure of job in different department accumulates properties more than from his known source of income, which gives rise to the setting into motion, Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act then in such case it would be too technical to hold that no department could allow the sanction under Section 19 of the P.C.Act as different tenure was at different department were spent and the department could not ascertain during which tenure the properties were gathered. In such analogy the entire object of P.C. Act would be defeated - Petition dismissed
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kanak Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Richa Shukla, Mr. Faiz Kazi & Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Ashish Shukla, Dy. A.G. Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. R.S.Marhas, Advocate Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate
1. Challenge in this petition is to quash the criminal prosecution lodged against the petitioner in Special Sessions Trial Case No.174/2007 pending before the Court below. The prayer is made that investigation conducted by Town Inspector, authorized by the Superintendent of Police on 14.01.2016 be quashed and it is prayed further the sanction for prosecution by order Annexure P-4 dated 17.02.2017 be quashed on the ground that it is without jurisdiction. Further, it has also been prayed that the properties of the wife of the petitioner which has been illegally clubbed with the properties of the petitioner be segregated by fresh investigation to evaluate the property of petitioner.
2. Mr. Kanak Tiwrai, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Ms. Richa Shukla, Mr. Faiz Kazi & Mr. Apurv Goyal would submit that the petitioner had initially worked from 13.12.1985 to. 24.08.1994 at Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation, thereafter, his services were transfered to Chhattisgarh Tourism Board in the year 1994 wherein he worked there up till 2014 and subsequently was absorbed and thereafter he was sent on deputation to Indira Gandhi Agriculture University in the year 2014 till the prosecution was lodged. It is contended that the allegation of committing the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “P.C. Act”). The check period has been shown from 01.01.1985 to January, 2016 and during this period the petitioner had worked in three Departments. It is stated that in December, 1985 the petitioner was not in job and the reference was made to Annexure P-15 and it was stated that from January, 1985 when the petitioner was private person not in any job his property could not have been taken into consideration to prosecute under Section 13(2) & 13(1) (e) of the P.C. Act.
3. Learned counsel further referred to Section 17 of the P.C. Act and stated that the offence referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 13 could not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police and it is stated in this case the same was not adhered too. It is contended that investigation has been defined under Section 157 of Cr.P.C. Referring to document, it is stated that the First Information Report in this case was lodged by one Anil Bakshi and he was authorized by a letter dated 14.01.2016 though it was received at a later date therefore the investigation from very inception is without jurisdiction. It is stated that the police officer being the complainant too he could not have investigated the offence. The reliance was placed in case of Megha Singh v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 709, Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 15, State Represented By Inspector OF Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirapalli, T.N. v. V.Jayapaul, (2004) 5 SCC 223, State By Inspector Of Police, Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, Madurai, Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam, (2010) 15 SCC 369, and counsel would submit that the person who is a complainant cannot investigate the offence as it causes prejudice. The submission is also made on the basis of State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and would submit that the Superintendent of Police here in this case has asked for registration of the case without application of mind as it would show in the charge sheet that only on presumption the investigation started. It is further stated that the Superintendent of Police could not have directed to register the FIR as it can only be done by the Station Incharge under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. The submission was made that Anil Bakshi having been authorized by the Superintendent of Police, the same was received by Anil Bakshi on 14.01.2016 as per Annexure P-2, therefore, prior to that date investigation could not have been carried out by him and further continued.
4. Referring to the sanction for prosecution given by the
