1. The criminal case (CC No.18/2010) from which these three petitions arise was registered on the basis of report(s) submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – hereinafter referred to as “the case of ACB” – in relation to First Information Report (FIR) No.34/2008, which was registered on 16.10.2008 by Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) Police Station of the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) for investigation into offences allegedly committed under Sections 7, 8 and 13(1)(a) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“POC Act”, for short) read with Sections 384, 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short).

2. The Special Judge, in seisin of the case, directed by order dated 02.03.2017, one of the accused persons whose prosecution was sought by ACB to be put on trial while discharging the two others. The order of discharge is challenged by the State by the criminal revision petition while the accused against whom charges have been framed assails the same very order invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court. The said accused had questioned the legality and validity of the sanction for his prosecution under Section 19 of POC Act, his contentions having been rejected by the subsequent order dated 11.10.2017 of the Special Judge, which is the subject-matter of challenge in the second captioned writ petition.

3. During the course of investigation of the case of ACB, four persons came to be arrested, they including Inspector Krishan Gopal Tyagi (A1), Sub-Inspector Mukesh Kumar (A2), Assistant Sub-Inspector Rajbir Singh (A3) and Mr. Ravinder Chadha, Advocate. On the petition of the last said arrestee, the Supreme Court by order dated 16.12.2013 in Crl. Misc. Petition Nos.18196-7 of 2013 in SLP (Crl.) Nos.7210-7211 of 2013 stayed the trial against him. As mentioned above, by order dated 02.03.2017, the Special Judge discharged A2 and A3 and directed charges to be framed against A1 for offences punishable under Sections 7/13(1)(d) of POC Act read with Sections 384,389,120-B IPC. The formal charges framed on 04.03.2017 reflect three heads, viz. under Sections 384/120-B IPC, Sections 389/120-B IPC and Sections 7/13(1)(d) of POC Act read with Section 120-B IPC.

4. After the charges had been framed, the prosecution led evidence on the issue of sanction and has examined Mr. Ashok Chand (PW-1), the then Additional Commissioner of Police (Additional CP) and Mr. Balwant Singh Dhingra (PW-2), the then Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), the former (PW-1) being the authority which had granted the sanction for prosecution of A1, A2 and A3 on 18.07.2014 under Sections 19 of POC Act, 1988 and the latter (PW-2) being the investigating officer of the case of ACB at the relevant point of time. The legality and validity of the sanction had been challenged before the trial court by A1, in the wake of such evidence having come on record, by a formal application. The said application was dismissed by the special Judge by order dated 11.10.2017.

Background Facts

5. Given the facts and circumstances of the case and the issues which have been raised by both sides, it is necessary to trace the germane background facts, in chronological order to the extent possible, focus being on such facts and events as regards which there is now no dispute, culled out from the documents or material relied upon or submissions made by the State or such further material which has come to be proved during the recording of evidence of aforementioned witnesses at the instance of the accused or further at the hearing in this court.

6. On or about 29.09.2007, a person named Vijay Singh Yadav @ Vijji was shot dead in Gali Arya Samaj Bazar, Sita Ram Delhi, the said incident becoming subject matter of FIR No.356/2007, under Section 302 IPC of Police Station Hauz Qazi, Delhi – hereinafter referred to as “the case of murder” – in which one Abhay Yadav is stated to be the complainant. The said case of mur