Point of Law: It is well settled law that if a judgment is referred to a larger Bench, proposition of law so enunciated in judgment does not lose its efficacy and it continues to remain a binding precedent till overruled by larger Bench.

JUDGMENT :

1. In both the writ petitions as the facts are similar, the relief so sought for is the same and the questions of law involved being pari materia, both the writ petitions are taken up for disposal by this common judgment and order.

2. One Shri Sailen Kumar Sharma, the Respondent No.5 in both the writ petitions had filed a petition under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) before the Court of the Special Judge, Assam making various allegations against one Shri Anup Kumar Gohain, the then Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Assam and to punish him as per the provisions of the Act of 1988 or the Indian Penal Code. It is relevant to take note of that in the petition so filed, there was no allegations against the Petitioners herein. The Court of Special Judge, Assam registered the said petition as Complain Case No.11/2013 and vide an order dated 20.08.2013 invoked the powers under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) and forwarded the complain petition to the Superintendent of Police, CM’s Special Vigilance Cell, Assam with a direction to register a case under appropriate provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to endorse the investigation of the case to a Police Officer not below to the rank of Dy. S.P. and also to submit a report within one month. The Respondent No.5 who was the complainant was directed to appear personally before the Superintendent of Police, CM’s Special Vigilance Cell, Assam within two days from the date of the said order. The Special Judge, Assam further fixed the matter on 20.09.2013 for submission of the report.

3. On the basis of the said order dated 20.08.2013, a Vigilance P.S. Case No.7/2013 was registered on 22.08.2013 under Section 420 of the IPC read with Section 13(1)(c)(d)/15/13(2) of the Act of 1988 and the said complaint filed by the Respondent No.5 was treated as the FIR. Thereupon, investigation was carried out and on 20.09.2013, the Superintendent of Police, CM’s Special Vigilance Cell, Assam submitted an investigation report before the Special Judge, Assam. The details of the investigation so carried out was mentioned in the said report and it was further stated that the investigation of the case was proceeding, verification and scrutiny of seized documents is yet to be completed.

4. The Special Judge, Assam vide an order dated 20.09.2013 upon perusal of the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, fixed 07.11.2013 for submission of the Status Report/Final Form. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer completed the investigation and opined in its report that the Petitioner in WP(C) No.1989/2014 as well as the Petitioner in WP(C) No.2707/2014 had prepared false demand (progress report) showing 100% physical progress of the Scheme 13th Finance Commission under Mangaldai Division (Irrigation) and forwarded to the authority for release of the fund with some ulterior motive for which the Petitioners were liable to be prosecuted under Section 13(1)(d)/15 of the Act of 1988 (as it stood prior to the Amendment of 2018). It is further seen from the records that on 29.01.2014, the Superintendent of Police, CM’s Special Vigilance Cell, Assam had issued a communication to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Irrigation Department seeking sanction for prosecution against the Petitioners in both the writ petitions under Section 13(1)(d)/15 of the Act of 1988 (as it stood prior to the Amendment of 2018). Both the Petitioners being aggrieved by the submission of the report by the Investigating Officer in Vigilance P.S. Case No.7/2013 as well as the request for according sanction by the Superintendent of Police, CM’s Special Vigilance Cell to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Irrigation Department vide the communication dated 29.01.2014 have approached this Court by filing both the writ petitions.

5. This Court vide an order dated 16.05.2014 in WP(C) No.1989/2014 had