Honble GOYAL, J.–Both the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are being decided vide common order as some of the facts and point of law involved are common.

(2). Briefly narrated the facts of both the petitions are as under :-

Misc. Petition No. 508/2000 :- One F.I.R. No. 6(A)/92 was registered against the accused petitioner Satish Chandra Mathur and two other accused persons namely Rameshwar and Om Prakash Gupta. After investigation, charge-sheet came to filed against Satish Chandra and Rameshwar Balai under Section 120-B IPC. read with Section 468, 467, 471 and 409 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act, 1988) for committing criminal breach of trust of a sum of Rs. 48,000/- and making false entries in the records and subsequently a sum of Rs. 24,000/- was re-deposited in loan accounts of the consumer. It was further observed by the Investigation Officer that additional charge-sheet against Om Prakash would be submitted after obtaining the sanction for prosecution.

Learned Special Judge (C.B.I. Cases), Jaipur registered the Criminal Case No. 34/1992 and framed the charges as stated hereinabove. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. The accused were examined as provided under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Final submissions were heard and three points for determination were framed by the learned Trial Judge. The first point for determination was as to whether accused Satish Chandra Mathur was a public servant and sanction for prosecution is valid. It was held by the learned Judge that at the relevant time accused Satish Chandra being Branch Manager was a public servant, but sanction for prosecution was given without application of mind, hence sanction for prosecution was not valid and in absence of valid sanction, cognizance could not have been taken against the accused Satish Chandra. Consequently, Satish Chandra was acquitted vide judgment dated 6.11.1998. It was further held that co-accused Rameshwar was prosecuted for the offence of criminal conspiracy with accused Satish Chandra, hence he was also acquitted.

Thereafter, sanctioning authority i.e. Chairman, Arawali Kshetriya Gramin Bank was approached for sanction of prosecution but the sanctioning authority declined sanction on the ground that the accused Satish Chandra has already undergone sufficient mental tension by way of contesting the case in the Court all these years and now no useful purpose would be served in granting sanction at this later stage. Therefore, charge-sheet only under I.P.C. offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 409, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. was filed against the accused petitioner and two other persons namely Om Prakash Gupta and Rameshwar Balai in the year 1999. Criminal Case No. 5/1999 was registered in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate (S.P.E. Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur.

An application was moved under Section 300 Cr.P.C. on 9.5.2000 by two accused persons Satish Chandra and Rameshwar with the averments that since they have already been acquitted after trial, they cannot be prosecuted again on the same facts. Learned Magistrate dismissed this application on the ground that earlier decision was not on merits, hence Section 300 Cr.P.C. is not applicable. It was also observed in view of the judgment of the Honble Apex Court delivered in State of T.N. vs. M.M. Rajendran (1), that if the order of sanction is found to be invalid, finding on the merits about the prosecution case is not permissible and the proper course would be to drop the proceedings and it would be open to the State to proceed afresh after obtaining the necessary sanction. Feeling aggrieved, the accused petitioner approached this Court by way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Petition No. 932/2001 :- This petition has been directed by the accused petitioner Madhav Saran against the order dated 24.7.2001 whereby the learned Special Judge (C.B.I.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document