^sss^^^^ v^S: s»c:.:@a ,'j,;.^^ t-t'lf-St •£m^t©-s. IN THEHIga^lOlSBttFaUUifiS^UR^^ SVREIT tETSn^N M200& PET3TtONER: .^^ il^i^ '.MS-^-^^ v.y-~.' .'•.:';'..* p^w ttESPSNDENTS VMmM a^ :<^..Firtu ,Ram :Ttiakyr,: Shri B. R. Thakyr, ; aged i , ^ about' 5G> years, • Tehislclar;; Sankara, 'fehsil Balocl, ^'Distnct'Durg;.'':^" :.::,:1;: Versus ~.<1: State of Ghtiattisgarh, through ths . ^Seeretary,: Ministry of Law & Mihistry ot Revenue; D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. ^2. Shri Dursai Shiouri, son of Shri Sahady Ram Shourey, ^: .;aged: ". at»out'i..;,^'27^-.^Y&ai's,' :'.^:;'':l:"'y'Tesia:entl%;;^ctfS^rBay^ :Vi:shrarapur,.|B^l:ar^'^?:.%.'f^;."' S h cj ? ^R.'§:''D^cuy^.-lhspecfOF :®^^^^.^%^i:-si^:l,;x:;;,^?'^^ '^0'^::^\vy./^:''^'\S:^ ;';''::(%r.uPB^ft^ ^^^^&^'^^K^'-^^ag^ ^'V'K fr- at' Anti Gorn-TRtjon SBureau,, Raipur. • '''';':''!::::.' ..•'•''',' , 4". Shri L.awfence ' ^ Khes,, Investigatirtg^j^Officer, :; An'ti Cc)rTup(ion;Buraau,ftBastar.,^ WKIT PE^CTION UNKeR&Rl'lCI-ES 226&^2S^OF^r^ ©ONSrlfU'nONORINDIA XI-HC-78 *w(^ a»w<i» g^'^itii^^sBflwi^-lfliat'yy. —.u?.^..HTi,.74^&/°2Jlfc »'-iY**r** *'«i »4.t »o,X*I*,-*..'<>,.,Il&'-...^».A^ ^ ,3<t3i!*l;t<3*c|i (ligti^?;S^E) 3:[I^i'?RTf3:lN (rarsn^Taiiiti 'S^iTWElf?(T3II^T «t)i<i(n<11-i iiicil" fftecfl| <6*ei<.; "i'fto 'nffw ::!yTw^? sri^T Sn^T ' »tK;:i:1" ^ i^ <: 17-1-2007 Shri. B.P. Sliflrma, Ad\tocate Shri Sanjay for the petitioner.1 S. Agrawaf., Govt. Advocate for the State. J-leard. respoijident 2. By this petttion, fhe initiated against him iu fh^ Uon-upUon Act, tlastar und|i Prevention of Comiption Acl|, on the basis of charge Crime No. 15/2004 registerit; Kaipur. 'l'iie peunoner was fhe relevant time. The before fhe Dy. Suiperintenri|i J^dalpur. On thc ibasis of registered and fhe conversatioa. On ; 4-12-20( coiaplamaut/ respondent N4 Dy. Supermtendeiit of polic^ aad on fhe basis ofthis coail was registered ^amst th^ successfuUy as me coiBiplauiaiit which! was ttu-Uier investigation fhe currency note used. tn ttie sheet was ffled aftei' obtairuni flieutioner tias unpugned me proceectuigs Court of Special Juage, Prevention of •r Section 7, 13(l)(d) and 13 (2) of fhe [ 1988 (heremafter referred to as fhe Act) she^t filed against ni'm inj connecUon wim conipl^uit 20D4 •^d in the oftice, Anti Cdn-uption Bureau, t>osted as Tehsildar in Bastar District at No. 2 lodged a report on 3-12-2004 ;nt of PoU.ee, Anti Coiruption Biireau, fhe coinplaiat a preltauiiary enquirv was was given a tape to recora uie conversatioii wasi recoixled. The i3f. 2 lodged yet aliofher report befone the [, Anti Corruption Bureau on 7-12-2004 plauit, oHence unaer SecUon 7 ot uie Act petitioner. ThereafteF trap was laid accepted bnbe inoney froni the recovered iroia him and on was found to have received fhe Ijrap and ia these ctrcumstances charge L^ sanction froin fhe Govemiaent. i -^g petitic|ner sulpsequenUy peytioner 2- XI-HC-78 *CTWIASb*+iqi .3^'^tlf< Id-il^ E»T(l'MiIifi,j^awy. b^.p.Mlo. -7^6/Aoo^ * * • »* •***•+•*.*.-*';'*-» ,311^1: ;tcb (1gFi3^f) sn^rqiti^rai TOTsn^TgiTOR 's^RiimSficran^Ti 'tll'ilfd'ifl-f t||t|ciTlftetil|<lsK^I<; ;-,'?.:. 7@; ;^ Slf^IT a.D^T^ 7^;.;^ ;; 3. The petitioner has p| proceedings on fhe ground obtaiued as per Section 19 of uiade by a person not autho^ prosecution based on uaaufhl (ui) the offence for w|hich ftie ^ his ofi&cial duty and, therefor^ petitioner are atosent. "ayed. tbr quasJilng ot the criiniual that (i) no valid sariction has been fhe Act; (ii) the uivestigatioii Jias been ized under the law and, therefore, the irized sauction is liable to be quashed; 'titioner was charged was not a part of ;, me ingrcdients ofonence agamst the Shti 4. On fhe other haad, State subnutted that validitv gone iato at the threshold an4 of saaction by produciag the sanction was accorded by subniits that as per busines|s accorded by the Law? Departm|E Secretary Revenue in the nol subiuits fhat from fhe docuiad evident ftiat on the basis of fhk aad after verifying the conip( taped between tlie petitioner bribe ajnoun.t was recovered fik by report of Chemical Analyst. hl-i Sanjay S. Agrawal appearmg for fhe t>r otherwise of the saubtion cannot be fhe prosecution can. prove fhe vaiidity Irelevaat ffle oa the basis of which the |the couipetent aufhonly, He furfher !|s ailocation iu fhe State, saaction is ;nt ofthe State aud fhe opinion ofthe sheet is df no relevaace. He further tnts ffled by fhe petitioner nimseif, it is coniplaint niade by respondent No. 2 ]|lauit on fhe conversatioa which was ajnd fhe coinplainant, trap was laid aad fslpm. fhe petitioner, whicja. is established 5. So far as vaUdl sanctkin) petitioner has referred to th( purpose and subinitted. ttiat ft|ie is concemed, leamed eounsel for the note sheet uiitiated for fhe above Secretaiy Revenue has categorically RT.D; XI-HC-78 tjn*«^irsiiwq» .3^','<ii<ii<nti,aKnwi?,,iq<:itti'i<, U5-P.^i?.7^4-o/%50& 3ll3,,'>^<a*h (llctf;i'!t^t) siicSTqirf^iN gsirsn^Taitflqi ?^IIWH)?cT 3tl^5T; 'sbi<<f<t<fl-< ii*i<'iT^te3i<Ei,<'&i<^ jg: -^i;s.i;^i3ri^T3n^ri^.;;.^ p ^ ^ opined that iu fhe iuatter of has no role to play aad fhe b[dbe tus possession aa(t pnma conspiracy the petitioner circunistaaces, saaction fb| liowever ignonag Uus opuuo}i Govenuaent without ass:^ru4g error or irregularily ia acc^ validity of proceediags unles^ error, oniission or\ uregulai|i1y Whether authorities accordi^ig caa be established by plac^ during tnal. The Supreine <] Badaland another^-s?- Stat^ has categoricaUy held that fhf of sauction aud the aUeged in| nund. Thfi fonuer q|uestk>n c( latter is a question which ha^ objection regarduig uivaUd stage. 6. So far as the contentiol fau~ price shop does not forc|i there is no co-relation betwten duty assigned to ttie petition| by the petitioner nimself alo^ig ^Uotineat of a fair price shop, Tehsildar nionev has not beda recovered n-oni |facie it appears thatlas a result of has been trapped ; and in these f prosecution would inot be proper, the saactipn has been granted by the ^g any reason. It is well setfted fhat ftie ^ming of sanctioa does not acFect the the court records satisfaction that such has resulted in failure of justice. h.g sanction applied fheir miad or aot, ng the relevaiit files before fhe Court [ourt ia the matters of Prakash Slnelt of Punjab reported in| (2007) 1 SCC 1 ;re 1s a clistinction betmeen the absence vaiidity on account of non-application of an be agitated at fhe threshold but the to be raised during trial. Therefore, the »>. . ^ iaaction camiot be considered at fhis p of the petitkiner fhat ithe allotiaent of part of fhe duty of the petitioner and the aUeged ofifenceiand the ofGcial ^r is concemed, from f&e material filed ^g wifh this petition aad the statenient XI-HC-78 3TI^T?ir^IR? (W 3TI^5T giIIR) '!*/ ^ '-.M^- *im'c'ii sb*Trai 35T?qraRTiT, ®Tfltf'ie,Istcfiyy _U-P-^o.7^0/^6<o. wra" ••""—••• •"••'•^-^i;200 3)1^1 Maw (^cli^al^liT) ?^ITW flf?cT 3I1^T recorded during investigati<|>n and subsequeiit acceptance) tbe vitlio 7. 'l'he 3rd ground of conducted bv aii ofticer conceniea, trom perusal ol| by fhe petitioner, prima fa<t Police, Anti Corruption in.vestigation. The petition^1' fhe Special Court has open to the petitioner to during tnal. Therefore I criminal proceediugs iuitja' quashed at the threshold. ralse 8. The petition being de^ aad it is dismissed accordi4gly <»>i<<(ci41-f iiH(iTfftecfl'<Ritrii< ^sTf^irsn^r n, the allegations of the deinaud of bribe is avauable in fhe record. ; • petitioner that ttie investigation was was not coiiipetent to iuvestigate is the docuiueut aaitexed with fhe petition ;ie it appears that Dy. Superintendent ol Biireau was activelv iuvolved in fhe without agitating fhis objectiou before straifehtway approached this Court. It shaU be this objection before fhe Special Court ^m. ol fhe considered opialon that fhe iuitjated agauist the petitioner cannot be /oid of substaace is liable to be disiuissed Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O. ;:1'