IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 195 of 2006 Sadhan Kumar Majumdar S/o Late Shri A.M.Majumdar, then Drugs Controlling Authority Uttaranchal, office Health Directorate, (Director General Medical Health and F.W) Chandar Nagar, Police Station Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun. At present R/o of 57-C Rest Camp, Tyagi Road, Dehradun, Police Station Kotwali District Dehradun. ………………..Applicant Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand) through Superintendent of Police Vigilance Department Dehradun, District Dehradun 2. Manish Nagpal S/o Shri J.P.Nagpal R/o 10, Lakshmi Road Dehradun, District Dehradun. ………….........Respondents Shri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate, present for the petitioner Smt. Mamta Bisht,A.G.A., present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the petitioner has sought 2 quashing of the proceedings of Special Session Trial 7 of 2006, State vs. S.K.Majumdar, pending in the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Dehradun/Sessions Judge Dehradun, relating to offences punishable under section 7/13, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and under sections 147, 332, 353, 186 and 504 I.P.C. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no sanction was obtained by the prosecution agency before filing the charge sheet against the petitioner who was Assistant Drug Controller of the State of Uttarakhand. (4) Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 7,10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act committed by a public servant accept with the previous sanction obtained from the concerned State Government or Union of India as the case may be. Perusal of the counter affidavit discloses that no sanction was given against the petitioner under section 19 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the petitioner shows that vide lated dated 20th of March 2009, the principal secretary to the Government of Uttarakhand informed that the Director Vigilance that the Government has decided not to 3 prosecute the petitioner S.K.Majumdar the then Assistant Drug Controller. Issuance of said later gets confirmed from Annexure-3 filed with reply of respondent no1 in its supplementary affidavit dated 17th of March 2011. From the all correspondance on record, it is evidently clear that no sanction for prosecution under any of the section was obtained by the prosecution agency. (5) In the above circumstances, for the want of mandatory sanction required under law the impugned prosecution of the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed and the proceedings of Special Session Trial 7 of 2006, State vs. S.K.Majumdar, pending in the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Dehradun/Sessions Judge Dehradun, relating to offences punishable under section 7/13, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and under section 147, 332, 353, 186 and 504 I.P.C., are hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.20.06.2011 N.P 4