Rabindra Kumar Rana vs State

D.N. Prasad, J.—This is an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 13-12-2001, whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge took cognizance for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 120-B IPC and 13(ii) read with 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused-persons including the petitioner in R.C. Case No. 68 (A)/96.

This case relates to Chaibasa Treasure and it was detected during investigation that the accused-persons under deep criminal conspiracy, fraudulently withdrew sum of Rs. 37,62,79,883/- from the District Treasury and misappropriate the amount against supply of materials to the Animal Husbandry Department without submitting bills and also be submitting forged and fabricated documents.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Court below committed error in taking cognizance as admittedly the petitioner was the public servant at the relevant time and there was no sanction obtained prior to taking cognizance, which is a condition precedent. It is also submitted that even if the Speaker, Vidhan Sabha permitted for prosecution, he had given his permission on 10-1-2002 after the order taking cognizance.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI contended before me that there is no illegality in the order for taking cognizance as the learned Court below rightly took cognizance and the Speaker has also given the permission for prosecution as against the petitioner by order dated 10-1-2002. It is further submitted that the sanction can be availed even at the time of final hearing of the case and it does not be construed as condition precedent during the time of taking cognizance.

The learned Counsel also relied upon a case reported in 2001 (6) page 704 and it is submitted that question of requirement of sanction for prosecution can be raised at any time after cogniaznce of the offence is taken.

It appears that the cognizance was taken by the Court below for the offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as under the offences of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is well-settled that sanction u/s 197 Cr. P.C. can be availed or raised even at the time of final hearing of the case or during the trial of the case. In the instant case, the Speaker has also given permission for prosecution as against the petitioner by order dated 10-1-2002. Furthermore, the allegation as made out successfully constitute the offences and prima facie case has been made out and as such I find that the Court below has rightly took cognizance for the offence. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned for interference.

In the result, there appears no merit in this application, which is dismissed. Application dismissed.