CRL.REV.P.320/2010 Page 1 $~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 320/2010 TILAK RAJ MEHANDIRATTA ..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Kanwal Sapra, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Salim Ahmed, ASC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 04.06.2010 1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 19/03/2010 dismissing the application that the petitioner had filed for ascertaining whether Mr. Madhukar Gupta, Vice -Chairman in DDA had given sanction for prosecution and why the said sanction was not placed on record and why Mr. Madhukar Gupta’s name was mentioned in the list of witnesses supplied to the accused. It was alleged in the application that the prosecution changed the sanction order and changed the witnesses and this had caused miscarriage of justice. 2. The present petition itself is not maintainable as the order passed by the learned trial court dated 19/03/2010 is an interlocutory order. Further, on merits CRL.REV.P.320/2010 Page 2 also there is no justification and reason to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The charge sheet was filed in the court on 23/11/2005 along with the sanction order passed by Mr. Dinesh Rai, the then Vice-Chairman, DDA which was received alongwith covering letter dated 26/10/2005. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused on 05/12/2005 including copy of the sanction order passed by Mr. Dinesh Rai. On 20.02.2007, Mr. Dinesh Rai, PW-1 was cross- examined by Mr. H.R. Taneja, advocate for the accused. No objection was raised at the time of cross examination of Mr. Dinesh Rai, the sanctioning authority that the copy of the sanction order was not served on the accused. 4. Prosecution evidence and the defence evidence has been completed and the case is now listed for final arguments before the Special Judge. The petitioner had moved the aforesaid application on 12/10/2009 enclosing therewith copy of sanction dated 25/12/2004 issued by Mr. Madhukar Gupta, the then Vice- Chairman, DDA. It has been explained in the impugned order that charge sheet was prepared on 11/2/2005 by Inspector Bhim Singh and put up before prosecution branch along with the sanction order issued by Mr. Madhukar Gupta, Vice Chairman, DDA. The prosecution branch, however, expressed doubt about the sanction as the appointing authority was the Commissioner(P), DDA whereas the sanction was accorded by Vice-Chairman, DDA. Hence, the file was again sent back for re-examination. Thereafter, sanction was obtained from Mr. Dinesh Rai, Vice-Chairman, DDA on 26/10/2005 and the charge sheet was filed before the court on 23/11/2005. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present petition and CRL.REV.P.320/2010 Page 3 the same is dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. JUNE 04, 2010 ‘ss’/VKR