Point of Law: Document prima facie has been also placed on record - In light of absorption letter if provisions of Section 19(1)(c) are looked into it lays down that sanction can be given for prosecution under P.C. Act when authority was competent to remove and sanction can be granted under Section 19 of P.C. Act - Petitioner having absorbed in Tourism Department, petitioner could have been removed by authority i.e. Managing Director - 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 setting into motion, Section 13(2) of P.C.Act then in such case it would be too technical to hold that no department could allow 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.

ORDER :

1. This criminal revision has been brought challenging the order dated 25.11.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act)/8th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No. 174 of 2017, dismissing the application filed by the applicant under Section 227, 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The applicant is being prosecuted in the Court of Special Judge, under the Prevention of Corruption Act. After filing of charge-sheet, on 27.08.2018, charges have been framed against the applicant under Section 13 (1) (e) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After framing of charges, the applicant moved an application under Section 227, 339 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 19 of the P.C. Act, challenging the validity of the sanction for prosecution, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that after lodging of FIR against him on 14.01.2016 by the respondent, sanction for prosecution was granted by the Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Tourism Board on 17.02.2017. Charge-sheet was filed against the applicant on 14.07.2017. The applicant preferred a Writ Petition (Cr.) No.302/2017, before the Single Bench of this Court for quashment of criminal prosecution launched against him, which was dismissed by order dated 07.08.2018. Writ Appeal No.670 of 2018 was preferred before the Division Bench of this Court, which has been decided on 05.03.2019. The learned Division Bench of this Court has observed that the applicant is not remedy less and he can avail remedy within the frame work of law especially under the Code of Criminal Procedure. S.L.P. that was filed before the Supreme Court has also been dismissed.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the application filed by him has not been decided on merits. Only consideration given by the learned Special Judge is this that after framing of charge and plea of innocence of the accused, the case is being fixed for prosecution evidence. The learned trial Court has observed that sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of P.C. Act can be challenged at any stage, but after the framing of charge, the stage of discharge has passed, hence, only for this reason, this application was rejected.

5. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Nanjappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 186, in which it was held that the question regarding validity of sanction can be raised at any stage of the proceeding and that the Special Court has power to pass an order at whatever stage of the proceeding, that the prosecution is not maintainable. It is submitted that the learned Special Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, therefore, the impugned order suffers from infirmity, which may be setaside and the Special Court may be directed to decide the application of the applicant under Section 227 and 239 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 19 of P.C. Act on merits.

6. Learned State counsel opposes the revision petition and the submission made in this respect. It is submitted that the applicant had challenged the validity of the sanction in W.P.(Cr.) No.302 of 2017 and that was dismissed after giving consideration on all the grounds raised by this applicant vide order dated 07.08.2018. Writ Appeal No. 670 of 2018 against the order dated 07.08.2018 has also been dismissed by the order dated 05.03.2019 and the SLP before the Supreme Court has also been dismissed. Hence, the challenge of the applicant on the ground of validity of the sanction order for prosecution has already been decided and therefore, there was no reason to raise it again before the Special Judge. The petition filed is without any merits, which may be dismissed.

7. In reply, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in the order dated 07.08.2018 passed in W.P.