CRL.M.C. 5049/2014

Page 1 of 22

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on : 28^th April, 2022

Pronounced on: 10^th June, 2022

+

CRL.M.C.

5049/2014,

CRL.M.A.

17295/2014,

CRL.M.A.

621/2020 & CRL.M.A. 2813/2021

DEVENDER GUPTA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Asim Naeem, Advocate

versus

C B I

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP with Ms.

Mishika Pandita, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1.

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”) read with Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed seeking setting aside of order dated

7^th August 2014 passed by learned Special Judge-CBI (PC Act) -06, Tis

Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter “learned Special Judge”) in CC No.

03/12.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2.

The petitioner herein is a public servant who has been named as an

accused in RC No. 47(A)/99/CBI/ACB/ND under Section 13(2) read with

2022:DHC:2309

CRL.M.C. 5049/2014

Page 2 of 22

Section 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

(hereinafter “PC Act”). Learned Special Judge vide order dated 11^th

April 2008 framed charges against the petitioner for the offence

punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) of

the PC Act for disproportionate assets of Rs.9,48,19,816/-. Learned

Special Judge also framed charges under Section 109 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC") against the other persons named as

accused.

3.

During pendency of the trial, in the present case, this Court in Crl.

M.C. No.2695 of 2010, titled as G.S. Matharoo vs. CBI vide judgment

and order dated 25^th January 2012, held that in cases of Group-A

employees of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter “MCD"), it

is the Corporation, that is the authority competent to grant sanction under

Section 19 of the PC Act and the Commissioner, MCD is not the

competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution of Group-A

employees of the MCD. The said judgment was confirmed by the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26^th August 2014 passed in SLP

(Crl) No. 7931/2012.

4.

The petitioner, after pronouncement of judgment dated 25^th January

2012 by a coordinate bench of this Court, filed an application dated 3^rd

April 2012 before the learned Special Judge praying for dropping of the

criminal proceedings pending against him on the ground that since in

present case the sanction as required under Section 19 of the PC Act was

not obtained from the Corporation, which is the competent authority,

therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned Special Judge and the

2022:DHC:2309

CRL.M.C. 5049/2014

Page 3 of 22

proceedings initiated against the petitioner were without jurisdiction and

void, having been initiated without obtaining sanction from the

Corporation as mandated by Section 19 of the PC Act.

5.

Learned Special Judge vide order dated 7^th August 2014 dismissed

the said application. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

SUBMISSIONS

6.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted

that the impugned order dated 7^th August 2014, whereby the petitioner‟s

application for dropping of criminal proceedings was dismissed, is

contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of G.S. Matharoo

(Supra) and again in CBI vs. Ram Bhaj Banal & Anr passed in Crl.Rev.

P. 68/2013 on 14^th September 2013, which settles down the position that

in cases of Group 'A' employees of the MCD, it is the Corporation, that is

the competent authority to grant sanction in terms of Section 19 of the PC

Act and not the Commissioner, MCD. The decision of G.S. Matharoo

(Supra) was further upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the

case of MCD vs. Dr. Ved Prakash Kanoji & Anr; 2013 SCC OnLine

Del 791.

7.

It is submitted