IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1671 OF 2008 Shri Deepak Laxman Phatangare ... Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. ---- Mr. M.R. Dhanawade i/b M/s Vaibhav & Assoc., for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM: A.S. OKA, J. DATE: 7TH JULY, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. The Petitioner is a Police Officer who was charged with the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was arrested and was on released on bail. The competent authority declined to grant sanction to prosecute the Petitioner. An application was made by the Investigating officer before the learned Special Judge for grant of “A” Summary. On the said application, an Order was passed by the Special Judge on 15th June, 2007, which reads thus: “1. I.O. To move the Competent Authority for reconsidering the question of granting sanction for prosecution of the accused persons in this A.C.B., B..M.U. C.R. No.65/2001 for the offences punishable u/s 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and then take : 2 : further steps according to the order which the Competent Authority may pass. 2. Concerned I.O. be informed accordingly. 3. This application be treated as disposed of.” 2. By this writ petition under article 227 of the Constitute of India read with Section-482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner has challenged the said Order. It must be stated here that there is a reply filed to this Petition in which it is stated that the competent authority has granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The said sanction was granted on 23rd July 2008. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs/ State of Gujrat, (1997(3) Crimes 301 (SC)). He submitted that even in writ jurisdiction this Court could not have issued a direction to the competent authority to re-consider the issue of grant of sanction or to direct the competent authority to grant sanction. The submission is that once the competent authority refuses to grant sanction, the said order cannot be reviewed or cannot be recalled. The learned APP for the State has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Vilas V. Sanghavi V/s State of maharashtra, 2007(2) Bombay cases (Cri), page 882). He submitted that the said decision is squarely applicable in the facts of the case. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. It is must be stated here that in this Petition, there is no challenge to the legality and validity of the Order dated 23rd July, 2008 by which the competent authority accorded the sanction to prosecute the Petitioner. In the case of Vilas : 3 : Sanghavi (Supra), a report was filed before the Special Court claiming “A” Summary” on the ground that the competent authority rejected the request for grant of sanction to prosecute an offender under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On the said report, the learned Special Judge passed an Order observing that the matter be referred to sanctioning authority for reconsideration. The learned Special Judge directed that after the sanctioning authority takes necessary steps, the prosecution can approach the Special Court. Subsequently, the competent authority granted sanction. The earlier order passed by the learned Special Judge as well as the order of sanction was challenged by the accused by filing a petition under Section 482 of the said Code before this Court. A reliance was placed before this Court on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Mansukhlal Chauhan (Supra) by submitting that in view of the direction issued by the learned Special Judge, the competent authority had no option, but to grant sanction. This Court observed that the order of the learned Special Judge cannot be read as a direction to the competent authority to grant sanction. This Court in the said order declined to exercise the power under Section 482 of the said Code. 4. Coming back to the facts of the present case, as noted earlier, there is no challenge to the subsequent order granting sanction and the challenge is confined to order dated 15th June 2007 passed by the learned Special Judge. 5. By no stretch of imagination, the said order can be read as an order directing the competent authority to accord the sanction. There is only an : 4 : observation made by the learned Special Judge that the Investigating Officer can move the competent authority for reconsideration of question of grant of sanction. The said order cannot be read as a direction to the competent authority to grant a sanction order. Hence, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is rejected. However, all other contentions on legality and validity of the order of sanction are kept open. JUDGE