JUDGMENT

Parth Prateem Sahu, J. - Correctness and sustainability of order dated 06.04.2018 passed in Writ Petition (Cr.) No.355 of 2017 is put to challenge in this writ appeal. The Appellant has questioned the grant of sanction dated 17.05.2017 passed by Respondent No.5 for prosecution of the Appellant under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') in the writ petition, which came to be dismissed.

2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that, the Appellant was working as Technical Assistant with Respondent No.4 i.e. Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation Raipur and was posted as Godown In-charge at Ware Housing Corporation, Balod. On anonymous complaint, Anti Corruption Bureau registered Crime bearing No.9/2015 mentioning therein the allegation with regard to the illegal recovery of amount from rice millers. As the Appellant was working as public servant, the Investigating Agency moved an application under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 for grant of sanction for prosecution of the Appellant. Initially the application for grant of sanction was refused, but subsequently sanction was ordered.

3. In the writ petition, the Appellant has challenged the grant of sanction of his prosecution in Crime No.15/2015 registered by Anti corruption Bureau, Raipur for offence under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988. The challenge was on the ground that the Sanctioning Authority rejected the application under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 vide order dated 29.07.2016 by a reasoned order, but subsequently, on letter dated 29.08.2016 (Annexure P/5) written by Additional Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Respondent No.5 has granted sanction for prosecution of the Appellant in Crime No.15/2015 vide order dated 17.05.2017.

4. The grant of sanction for prosecution of the Appellant in Crime No.15/2015 was challenged in the writ petition on the ground that earlier Sanctioning Authority has rejected the application under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 and refused to grant sanction by a detailed order, but Respondent No.5 without there being any fresh material collected and placed before him by Investigating Agency, has reviewed its own order, for which, Respondent No.5 has no power of review.

5. The Respondents submitted reply mentioning therein that the rejection of first application under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 was on wrong premise as the Sanctioning Authority arrived at a conclusion that no sanction can be accorded under the same provision and offence and under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, a person cannot be prosecuted and punished for one offence twice.

6. The conclusion of the Sanctioning Authority was not correct and accordingly it was corrected by passing another order on 17.05.2017 whereby sanction for prosecution has been ordered. The offences which are subject matter of Crime No.9/2015 is for the offences under Sections 11, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and under Sections 109, 120-B, 420 and 409 of the IPC whereas the offences in Crime No.15/2015 which is subject matter of the writ petition is for the offences under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988. The nature of offences in both the crime numbers are different.

7. Respondents No.4 and 5 have specifically pleaded that the order of sanction dated 17.05.2017 has been passed after following due procedure. Respondent No.5 has obtained authorization from Board of Directors and it is only thereafter, Respondent No.5 proceeded and granted sanction vide order dated 17.05.2017 (Annexure P/1).

8. The learned Single Judge while considering the materials and pleadings made by respective parties, submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and also considering the relevant laws/rulings on the issue, dismissed the writ petition and held that the Sanctioning Authority was justified in holding that the grant of sanction under Section 19 of the Act of 1988 i