The court declared the prosecution sanction invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the sanctioning authority, setting precedence that invalid sanction affects prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

Both these applications are directed against order dated 22.05.2023 passed by learned Special Judge Vigilance, Cuttack in T.R. Case No.40 of 2012 whereby the motion for discharge by the petition was rejected.

2. Both the petitioners are arrayed as accused persons in the aforementioned case for the alleged commission of offences under Section 13 (2) read with (1)(d) of the P.C. Act and Sections 420 /468/477-A read with Section 120 -B of IPC .

3. The main allegation against the petitioners is that they were working as Lecturers in Adikabi Saraladas College, Tirtol, which is an Aided Educational Institution. The Government of Odisha promulgated the Odisha Aided Educational Institutions (Appointment of Lecturers Validation) Act, 1998 to validate the appointment of lecturers appointed between 01.01.1985 to 31.12.1992. The Government in the Department of Higher Education asked all the College authorities to furnish list of Lecturers who had the requisite qualification and eligibility for such validation. The names of 18 (eighteen) Lecturers including the names of the present petitioners were forwarded and by order dated 06.01.2001, the services of 14 (fourteen) Lecturers were validated excluding the names of the present petitioners and one Itishree Mohanty. Such exclusion of name was on the basis of the allegation that their dates of joining in the institution had been manipulated only to bring their case within the cut-off date for validation. Accordingly, on the written report of D.S.P., Vigilance, Jagatsinghpur, Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 45 dated 11.11.2009 was registered for the aforementioned offences followed by investigation. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and sanction for prosecution was obtained from the Sub-Collector-cum- President of the Governing Body of the College whereupon, the court below took cognizance of the offences and issued process. After appearance, the petitioners approached this Court in CRLMP No. 2579 of 2022 but the same was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to file a petition for discharge in the court below. Accordingly, the petitioners filed an application for discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Mainly on the ground that the Sub-Collector had no jurisdiction or authority to grant sanction for prosecution. The said petition was heard and rejected by the impugned order by holding that the question of authority of the Sub-Collector to accord sanction is to be gone into only on the basis of evidence to be led during trial but not at the stage of framing of charge.

4. Heard Mr. B.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.N. Maharana, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department.

5. Mr. Das would argue that the sanction accorded by the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur in the capacity of President of the Governing Body of the College is without jurisdiction inasmuch as this Court as per judgment passed in the case of Bharatiya Chaturdham Ved Bhawan Nyas and another v. State of Orissa and Another in W.P.(C) No.9541 of 2004 on 26th July 2010 held that the notification dated 10.10.2004 of the Government in Department of Higher Education in dissolving the Governing Body of all non-Government Aided Colleges with immediate effect and by directing the Additional District Magistrate at District Headquarters and Sub-Collectors at other places to take over as President of the Governing Bodies was quashed as being without any jurisdiction under the Odisha Education Act or Rules framed thereunder. Since the order of sanction was passed after passing of the judgment of this Court, the same has no for