The process of granting prosecution sanction must adhere strictly to established legal guidelines, ensuring that the authority evaluates all relevant materials before issuing such sanction.

JUDGMENT

Date : 30-05-2022

1. Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 as well as Mr. O. Pada, learned Special PP for respondent No.3.

2. It is submitted at the Bar that all these 19 (nineteen) petitions have arisen out of the same prosecution order, vide Memo No.SPWD-290/2014, dated 16.03.2018, and as such, all these criminal petitions may be disposed of by a common judgment and order. Accordingly, it is proposed to dispose of all these 19 (nineteen) criminal petitions by this common judgment and order.

3. In these applications, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have put to challenge the prosecution sanction order, vide Memo No.SPWD-290/2014 dated 16.03.2018, by which sanction is accorded to prosecute them in connection with Yazali P.S. Case No. 05/2011. 4. The factual background, leading to filing of theese applications, is briefly stated as under:- “On 29.04.2011, Shri J. T. Takam of Yazali lodged one complaint with the Yazali Police Station alleging large scale misuse of fund allocated for construction of road:- (a) C/o road from Jop to Silsong; (b) C/o road at KVK Yachuli; and (c) C/o road from Loth to Chambang for an amount of Rs.3569.02/- lakhs. Upon the said complaint Yazali P.S. Case No. 05/2011, dated 11.07.2011 has been registered under Section 409 IPC, read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . After registration, the case was transferred to the SIC (Vigilance), Itanagar, pursuant to an order of Dy. Inspector General of Police, vide No.PHQ/CR/GC/ZIRO-05/2011, dated 11.07.2011; and the investigation was carried out, which culminated in submission of Charge-Sheet, dated 14.10.2015, before the learned Special Court (PCA) Yupia in PCA Case No.01/2016(YPA) against the 21 officials of the P.W.D. Yazali and Ziro Sub-Division and the contractors, including the present petitioners, who were working in different capacities in PWD, Ziro Division, at the relevant time, under Section 120(B)/409/420 IPC and Section 13 (1) (c) (d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 without, however, obtaining prosecution sanction against the petitioners.”

4.1. Thereafter, the learned Court below had issued summon to the petitioners/accused persons, and on their appearance, and after hearing both sides, the learned Court below has discharged all the accused persons, including the present petitioners, on the ground of absence of prosecution sanction, and in absence of materials against the accused vide order, dated 21.12.2017.

4.2. Thereafter, the SIC (Vigilance) had challenged the order, dated 21.12.2017, by filing a Criminal Revision Petition No.05 (AP)2018, before this Court and the same was disposed of on 22.06.2021, and the impugned order, dated 21.12.2017, passed by the learned Special Judge (PCA), Yupia was set aside and direction was issued to the learned court below to proceed with the trial. It is to be noted here that during pendency of the said revision petition before this Court, the SIC (Vigilance) had filed one additional affidavit before this Court with a prayer to bring on record the subsequent filing of supplementary Charge-Sheet in SIC (Vigilance) P.S. Case No.05/2011, in the Criminal revision petition, on 21.03.2018, with the prosecution sanction granted by the competent authority vide letter, dated 21.02.2018, vide Memo No.SPWD-290/2014.”

5. Then, being highly aggrieved by the aforesaid prosecution sanction order, dated 16.03.2018, the present 19 (nineteen) petitioners have preferred these 19 (nineteen) criminal