CR.RA/431/1999 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 431 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= NARPATSING MANSANG PARMAR - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MJ BUDDHBHATTI for Applicant(s) : 1, Mr S S Patel, Addl.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 08/01/2007 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By the present revision application, the petitioner has sought to challenge the order CR.RA/431/1999 2/6 JUDGMENT dated 22.7.1999 of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, dismissing his application for discharge in Special Case No.24/94 in which charge-sheet for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13 (1)(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') was filed. The petitioner had applied for discharge on the ground that previous sanction required under the provisions of section 19 of the Act was not granted by the officer competent to remove him from service since the authority appointing him was District Development Officer whereas the sanction was granted by Dy. Development Officer. The petitioner relied, in the trial court as well as in this court, upon the judgment of this Court dated 7.7.1998 in Criminal Revision Application No.513/97, wherein it was not disputed that the cadre of Talati- cum-Mantri was a district cadre and the disciplinary authority competent to impose penalty upon Talati-cum-Mantri was District Development Officer. Learned counsel Mr Buddhabhatti further argued that, in the facts CR.RA/431/1999 3/6 JUDGMENT of the present case, the petitioner happened to be Talati-cum-Mantri appointed by the order dated 24.9.1979 of the Dy. District Development Officer but he was in the district cadre. 2. Learned APP, Mr Sudhanshu S. Patel relied upon the order granting sanction in the present case and the provisions of Rules of 1967 and the circular dated 16.8.1966 whereby the Dy.District Development Officer was empowered to appoint Secretaries of Panchayats, as mentioned in the impugned order of the trial court. Learned APP also relied upon the later judgment in Laljibhai Shivshanker Trivedi v. State of Gujarat (2001 (3) GLR 2033) wherein it is held that the Dy.District Development Officer has concurrent powers of appointment and removal of Talati-cum- Mantri, by a fiction of law. The learned APP also relied upon the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 19 of the Act whereunder irregularities if any, in the grant of sanction could not be pressed into service for reversing an order unless, in the opinion of the Court, CR.RA/431/1999 4/6 JUDGMENT failure of justice had, in fact, been occasioned thereby. He submitted that no failure of justice was even contended by the petitioner. He also pointed out that under the said provisions, the proceedings ought not to have been stayed, but because of the stay of the proceedings in the year 1999 and subsequent passage of time, the present proceedings may have occasioned failure of justice. 3. In view of the above facts and submissions, and in absence of rules and circulars relied upon by the trial court in the impugned order, it has to be believed and held that the Dy. District Development Officer was empowered and authorised to sanction prosecution under the provisions of section 19 of the Act. If that be so, the present revision application was wholly misconceived and not maintainable. 4. At this stage, learned counsel Mr Buddhabhatti sought to argue that the sanction in the present case was granted in the year 1993 when the circular CR.RA/431/1999 5/6 JUDGMENT published on 16.8.1996 might not have been in force. However, as mentioned in the impugned judgment, the circular in question was issued in 1993. Therefore, in absence of a copy of the circular being produced by the learned counsel on either side, it cannot be said that, on the date the sanction was granted, the Dy. District Development Officer was not authorised and/or empowered to grant sanction. The trial court has also relied upon the Gujarat Panchayat Services (Discipline & Appeals) Rules of 1964 and particularly Rule 13 thereof whereunder the disciplinary authority for Secretaries of Panchayats was the Dy.District Development Officer. 5. Thus, in short, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order and no ground is made out to hold that the Court could not have legally taken cognizance of the offences pursuant to the aforesaid charge sheet. Therefore, the application is rejected, Rule is discharged and interim relief is vacated with no order as to costs. Since the precious time of 10 years has elapsed during the pendency of the present proceedings, the trial court CR.RA/431/1999 6/6 JUDGMENT shall proceed with the case as expeditiously as practicable. [D. H. Waghela, J.] msp