Anand Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 01.10.2022 passed by the Special Judge (PC Act), Bilaspur, in Special Session Case (PC Act) No.2/2022, whereby the application preferred by the applicant under Section 227 of the CrPC read with Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018 (hereinafter called as 'PC Act') has been dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was posted as Assistant Project Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission (S.S.A.), Bilaspur. On the basis of preliminary enquiry, FIR for disproportionate assets bearing Crime No.34/2016 for offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act was registered against him and during the investigation, the prosecuting agency has obtained sanction vide order dated 18.7.2018 (Annexure P-2). From perusal of sanction order, it appears that total income was ascertained to the tune of Rs.3,66,85,562/- and expenditure for the check period was determined to the tune of Rs.9,11,93,537/-, thereby disproportionate assets was accumulated by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.5,45,07,975/-, which is 148.58% in excess and disproportionate to the income. So, the applicant has filed writ petition bearing WPCR No.138 of 2018, in which by order dated 24.7.2018 this Court directed respondents No.3 and 4 therein to consider on the explanation given by the applicant in Form No.1, 2 & 3 and to also consider on any other representation to be made by him in future by allowing him to make additional submission or to produce additional documents. Upon such direction, the prosecuting agency / Anti Corruption Bureau has re-investigated the matter and found income to the tune of Rs.10,63,49,856/- and expenses for the check period to the tune of Rs.15,67,04,698/-, thereby disproportionate assets was accumulated by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.5,03,54,842/-. After reinvestigation the matter was again referred to sanctioning authority and sanctioning authority vide order dated 15.12.2021 (Annexure P-4) stated that as the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the applicant was found in excess of more than 10% of disproportionate assets for the check period i.e. 47.43% and as earlier sanction order has already been issued on 18.7.2018, so no fresh sanction is needed and accordingly, such communication was made to the prosecuting agency.

Mr.Ashutosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, would submit that under Section 19 of the PC Act the investigating agency has put-forth the amount and other details after reinvestigation before the sanctioning authority. In spite of such request, the sanctioning authority has not granted fresh sanction. Therefore, there is no valid sanction for the charges for offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. So, he prays to set aside the impugned order and direct the concerned Court to allow the application filed by the applicant under Section 227 of the CrPC. He placed reliance in the matters of Nanzappa v. State of Karnataka reported in 2015 ACR 717, Mohmad Iqbal Ahmad v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1979 (SC) 677 and Dilip Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh and others [W.P.(CR) No.355/2017.

Per contra, Ms Priyamvada Singh, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State, would support the impugned order and submit that after reinvestigation, the prosecuting agency has placed the entire material before sanctioning authority and sanctioning authority after reconsidering all the materials given permission to continue the prosecution on the basis of earlier sanction order and also mentioned that the applicant has found disproportionate assets for the check period to the tune of 47.34%. So, there is no justification to reconsider the earlier order.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with revision.

It is explicit that the learned trial Court has taken into consideration the figures which have been obtained in reinvestigation and disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.5,03,54,842/- was accumulated by the petitioner during the check period for which charges have been framed and sanctioning authority has also issued the earlier sanction order on 18.7.2018 and as per direction given by this Court in WPCR No.138/2018 vide order dated 24.7.2018, fresh and revised material were again placed before the sanctioning authority for reconsideration and after reconsideration of such materials, the sanctioning authority has issued the letter on 15.12.2021 as the applicant has found in excess of income to the tune of 47.34%. Upon such reconsideration, the sanctioning authority has not recalled the earlier order and directed the prosecution agency to continue the prosecution.

The Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Rajmohan v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai, Tamil Nadu reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1377 has held that consequence of non-compliance of mandatory requirement of sanction shall not be a ground for quashing of criminal proceeding.

In the instant case, the sanctioning authority has properly reconsidered the fresh materials obtained during the investigation and the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in rejecting the application filed by the applicant under Section 227 of the CrPC read with Section 19 of the PC Act. So, this Court is of the view the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is of no help to him and distinguishable to the facts of the present case.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court do not find any merit in this criminal revision. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.