Gujarat High Court
Jobdas Suryanarayanprasad Geddam vs State Of Gujarat & on 14 February, 2017
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
R/CR.RA/842/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 842 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
===============================================================
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 or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
JOBDAS SURYANARAYANPRASAD GEDDAM....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR UMESH A TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SAMIR AFZAL KHAN, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MITESH AMIN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 14 /02/2017
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By way of present Criminal Revision Application preferred Page 1 of 18 HC-NIC Page 1 of 18 Created On Wed Feb 15 02:56:56 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/842/2016 CAV JUDGMENT under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, City Civil Court No.13, Ahmedabad City, in ACB C.R. No.18 of 2004/ACB Summary Case No.2 of 2005 dated 12.9.2016, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has quashed the "A" Summary report and issued summons against the applicant for the offences under Sections 7, 12, 13(1), (d), 1,2, 3 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, making it returnable on 15.10.2016.
2. The facts of the case stated briefly are that one Husein @ Kaliya Noormily Shaikh on 4.11.2014 at about 1:30 p.m. registered one complaint before ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad, being C.R. I No.18 of 2004 against one Sachin Muljibhai Patel, unarmed police constable of Maninagar Police Station at the relevant time for the offences under Sections 7, 12, 13(1), (d), 1,2, 3 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, wherein it is stated that on 26/27.10.2004 at about 9:30 - 10:00 p.m. when his cousin Bashir Shaikh was siting at his hotel, the accused named in the FIR i.e. Sachin Patel came there and gave two slept to said Bashir Shaikh. The said accused took took the complainant along with said Bashir and at that time, the complainant told the accused as to why his cousin was beaten and the accused replied that after few days, the turn of the complainant would come and then, the accused took both these persons. As per the complaint, the complainant came to know that his cousin Bashir is arrested and case under Section 122 of the Gujarat Police Act has been registered by Shah Alam Police Chowki. On 29.10.2004, at about 10:00 p.m., said accused namely Sachin Patel met the Page 2 of 18 HC-NIC Page 2 of 18 Created On Wed Feb 15 02:56:56 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/842/2016 CAV JUDGMENT complainant and talked with the complainant and at that time, the accused talked over with someone and thereafter, the Applicant who is PSI along with one Dilawarsinh policeman came there and the complainant was taken to Shah Alam Police Chowki. The applicant informed the complainant that he was to be produced before PI Shri Pathak at Rambaugh Police Station and the applicant was beating the complainant. Therefore, the complainant asked the applicant that what is fault. To which the applicant said the complainant that "you are road side romeo, commits rape and there is terror in your name". Thereafter, the complainant was taken to Rambaug Police Station and then he was taken to Shah Alam Police Chowki and beaten the complainant. It is stated in the complaint that the applicant and the said Sachin Patel abused the complainant and threatened him of getting his hotel shutdown. It narrated in the complaint that thereafter, one Mayur @ Raju reached the hotel, where the applicant and said Sachin Patel were very well there and requested to release the complainant. To which the applicant said him to make some arrangement for not beating the complainant and for continuing his hotel. Therefore, the complainant has requested that he is poor person and he may be harassed. At that time, said Sachin Patel intervened and demanded Rs.5000/- for the same otherwise, he would be beaten at the hotel in naked condition and would lose the image in the society. Therefore, under such fear, said Mayurbhai made arrangement within short time and he handed over Rs.2000/- to the accused Sachin Patel, who in turn handed over the said amount to the present applicant. Thereafter, the accused Sachin Patel asked about the remaining amount of Rs.3000/-, to which the complainant replied that since there is holy month "Ramzan" is Page 3 of 18 HC-NIC Page 3 of 18 Created On Wed Feb 15 02:56:56 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/842/2016 CAV JUDGMENT going on, he would give Rs.1500/- on next Thursday I.e. 4.11.201 in the evening and another Rs.1500/- would be given Sunday. It is also stated in the complaint that on 29.10.2004, the applicant filed a case against the complainant under Section 151 and put in lock up and on next day I.e. on 30.10.2004, he was produced before the Magistrate and he was released on bail.
The applicant accused and another accused Sachin Patel already collected Rs.2000/- and Rs.1500/- out of remaining Rs.3000/- was to be collected from the hotel on 14.11.2004, which would be received by the accused Sachin Patel on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, complaint is registered against the accused before the ACB Office. Pursuant to the said FIR, a trap was arranged, wherein said accused namely Sachin Patel was caught with Rs.1500/- and detailed panchnama was drawn. After conducting depth investigation, the papers of investigation were placed before the Director, ACB, Ahmedabad City for consideration and approval. After considering the investigation papers in detail, the Investigating Officer was informed to submit "A" Summary Report as evidence is insufficient to proceed against the accused vide letter No. Ahmedabad City/ACB/Police Station/ C.R. No.I-18 of 2004/527/2005 dated 23.5.2005. Pursuant to the said approval, the Investigating Authority submitted final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and asked for granting "A" Summary in to the case. Thereafter, learned Special Judge accepted the "A" Summary Report dated 18.6.2005. Against the order for accepting "A" Summary Report, the complainant preferred Criminal Revision Application No.417 of 2006 against the accused namely Sachin Page 4 of 18 HC-NIC Page 4 of 18 Created On Wed Feb 15 02:56:56 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/842/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Patel. It is to be noted that the present applicant was never joined as party in the said Revision Application though in the FIR, the complainant asserted for the named accused accepted the said amount on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, the applicant did not about such proceedings of Revision Application filed by the applicant challenging the acceptance of "A" Summary Report and all of sudden, when news item published in the newspaper about issuance of process and taking of cognizance by the Court, the applicant came to know about the same. Thus, the applicant obtained the necessary documents from the Court where he found that without making him as a party respondent in the Revision application, the complainant has obtained order against the applicant. Thereafter, this Court passed order on 17.8.2011 in Criminal Revision Application No.417 of 2006 and quashed and set aside the order accepting the "A" Summary Report and remanded back the case to the trial Court to decide on the report submitting by the Investigating Officer afresh.
3. Learned Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Ahmedabad, by order dated 12.9.2016 rejected the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer seeking "A" Summary, as the evidence is insufficient, to proceed against the accused and ordered to issue process against the named accused of the FIR as stated above. In view of the above, the applicant is constrained to approach this Court seeking direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 12.9.2016 issuing process against the applicant.
4. The Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing Rule on 13.10.2016, making it returnable on 15.12.2016, granted Page 5 of 18 HC-NIC Page 5 of 18 Created On Wed Feb 15 02:56:56 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/842/2016 CAV JUDGMENT interim relief in terms of para 10(C).
5. Learned advocate Mr. Umesh Trivedi appearing for the applicant stated that the Investigating Officer has acted as Judge in this case and he cannot ignore any material in investigating the offence. He submitted that the Investigating Officer has clearly opine about any offence committed by the accused and he cannot ignore the conclusion reached after interrogation of the accused / proposed accused. As per the Police Manual, the Investigating Officer is duty bound to consider the defence raised by the proposed accused and is supposed to investigate the said defence during the investigation. He also submitted that for example, if during the course of investigation, the accused raises any plea of alibi with contemporaneous record, the Investigating Officer cannot shut eyes and has to investigate the same and reach to a logical conclusion and if it is found that the plea of alibi raised by the accused during the course of investigation appears to be true and correct, no one can restrain him from exonerating the proposed accused and submitting any summary or even a report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also submitted that if the allegations made in the FIR are believed to true, anyone in place of applicant can be shown to have committed an offence. He also submitted that the allegations against the accused are without any corroborative evidence or material, no accused can be proceeded against. He also submitted that this Court has remanded the case for fresh decision would not mean that earlier order accepting the summary has to be set aside and different conclusion has to be reached. He also submitted the applicant has fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of not facing Page 6 of 18 HC-NIC Page 6 of 18 Created On Wed Feb 15 02:56:56 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/842/2016 CAV JUDGMENT unmerited or undeserved prosecution at the hands of unscrupulous person like the first informant. He further submitted that the complainant is history-sheeter and there are several cases filed against him. He also submitted that from the report dated 23.5.2005, it is clear that there is no prima facie case exists against the applicant which would require even issuance of process against him. He also submitted that while rejecting final report submitted by Investigating Officer and issuing process I.e. taking cognizance, the learned trial Judge has lost sight to the fact that there is clear prohibition in law taking cognizance in the present case without valid sanction as provided under the Prevention of Corruption Act before proceedings against the public servant. In absence of valid sanction, no process could have been issued against the applicant. He also submitted summons of an accused in criminal case is a serious matter as decided in various cases and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course or routine.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Umesh Trivedi for the applicant relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Gaurishankar Purshottamdas Joshi Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2016(3) GLR 2237 and submitted that in absence of sanction, the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence and therefore, trial without sanction renders the proceedings ab initio void.
7. Learned advocate further placed reliance on another decision in the case of Manojbhai Bhagwandas Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in 2001(3) GLH 482, wherein this Court has observed that the order taking cognizance and Page 7 of 18 HC-NIC Page 7 of 18 Created On Wed Feb 15 02:56:56 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/842/2016 CAV JUDGMENT issuing summons was without jurisdiction and bad as there was no sanction on record accorded by the competent authority under Section 19 of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that without any proper and valid sanction, issuance of summons is without jurisdiction and same is bad in law.
8. Reliance placed by the learned sanction sanction advocate Mr. Umesh Trivedi in the case of L. Narayana Swamy Vs. State of Karnataka and submitted that to prosecute against the accused, who is public servant, the sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act must be required and in absence of such sanction and in absence of valid sanction, the learned trial judge cannot issue summons against the accused.
9. Learned advocate Mr. Umesh Trivedi further relied upon the case of Anil Kumar and Ors. Vs. M.K. Aiyappa and Anr. reported in AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 1801 and submitted that in the complaint of corruption against the public servant, Court cannot issue direction to prosecute the accused without valid sanction from the competent authority.
10. Learned advocate Mr. Umesh Trivedi submitted that when allegation raised against the accused, who is public servant, under the provisions of Corruption Act, the demand made by the public servant is required to be established prima facie. He also submitted that when the demand is not established, no case can be established. He also submitted that recovery within time is also required to be established beyond reasonable period and then so-called accused can be convicted sanction. Here at the time of incident, the demand was made by co-accused I.e. Sachin Patel and not by present applicant. He also submitted that as per the complaint, the Page 8 of 18 HC-NIC Page 8 of 18 Created On Wed Feb 15 02:56:56 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/842/2016 CAV JUDGMENT complainant was taken into custody under the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he has not made any complaint before the Court before it, he has been produced.
11. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Umesh Trivedi prayed to allow present application by quashing and setting aside the order impugned passed by the trial Court.
12. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin appearing for the respondent - State stated that the State has not challenged the order impugned passed by the Sessions Court. No doubt, he agrees that as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts in various decisions, in absence of valid sanction, if the cognizance is taken by the Court is illegal in the eye of law.
13. Learned advocate Mr. Samir Khan appearing for the original complainant strongly opposed the Revision Application and supported the impugned order passed by the trial Court and submitted that present applicant has no locus to challenge said order of taking cognizance by the learned Special Judge and learned Special Judge is not required to give opportunity to hear the original accused at the time of filing report under Section 169 or 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He read the order passed by the learned Special Judge and submitted that earlier, the Criminal Revision Application No.417 of 2006 was filed before this Court and same was remanded back vide order dated 17.8.2011. He also submitted that under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, learned Special Judge is entitled to take cognizance of offence as provided Page 9 of 18 HC-NIC Page 9 of 18 Created On Wed Feb 15 02:56:56 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/842/2016 CAV JUDGMENT under Section 190(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure and even under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is submitted by the learned advocate sanction that the accused does not have right until cognizance is taken. Therefore, the conduct of the present applicant is not proper because in any case, if he is aggrieved by the order of process, he could have filed the application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge before framing of charge as provided under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view this submission, present Revision Application is not maintainable. He also submitted that in commission of such offence, the applicant has played vital role with the help of co- accused - Sachin Patel and therefore, it can be said that the demand is very well proved. He also submitted that since 2004, though the FIR and raid was carried out successfully but somehow one or other reason, the matter was prolonged upto now and so far 13 years are passed, till date no actions are taken against the said officer. He also submitted that when there is prima facie case against the accused, the investigating agency by ignoring all the evidence, has filed the summary against the present applicant.
14. Learned advocate Mr. Samir Khan has relied upon the case N.K. Ganguly Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi reported in (2016) 2 Supreme Court Cases 143 and stated that present Revision is not maintainable.
15. Learned advocate Mr. Samir Khan submitted that the Revision is not maintainable and therefore, same is required to be dismissed as the learned trial Judge has issued summons against the applicant.
Page 10 of 18HC-NIC Page 10 of 18 Created On Wed Feb 15 02:56:56 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/842/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
16. Perused the record of the case and considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. Here, in the present case, the offence is pertaining to the Prevention of Corruption Act and as per the complaint, the accused made demand of bribe. It is also to be noted that the accused is a public servant. It is also pertinent to note that learned Special Judge has ordered to quash the "A" Summary Report and issued summons against the applicant in connection with the offence under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 1,2,3 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as also directed the Registry of the Sessions Court to register case as ACB Special Sessions Case.
17. Here in this case, the issue of sanction to prosecute against the public servant is material and therefore, this Court has perused the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is true that for prosecuting against the public servant, the sanction is required from the competent authority and as per the provisions of Section 19, no court shall take cognizance of the offence under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act to have been committed by a public servant.
18. This Court has perused the letter issued by the ACB office dated 23.5.2005, wherein it is stated that there is no direct evidence against the applicant and even no departmental inquiry is required to be made against him. There is no iota of evidence regarding sanction approved against the applicant to prosecute against him. It appear that it is not come on record that the present applicant has accepted the said amount but it is alleged in the complaint that the present applicant in collusion with the one another accused namely Sachin Patel, Page 11 of 18 HC-NIC Page 11 of 18 Created On Wed Feb 15 02:56:56 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/842/2016 CAV JUDGMENT demanded the bribe. It is a matter of evidence and this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case. Here only question raised before this Court is that the summons in question issued against the applicant for the alleged offence, which is permissible under the law. This Court has perused the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which reads as under:
"19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution :- (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction, -
(a) in the case of a person who employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.
(2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as re quired under Sub-Section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.Page 12 of 18
HC-NIC Page 12 of 18 Created On Wed Feb 15 02:56:56 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/842/2016 CAV JUDGMENT (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) :
-
(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under Sub-Section (1), unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby;
(b) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice;
(c) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no Court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.
(4) In determining Sub-Section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings.
19. If a general power to take cognizance of an offence is vested in a Court, any prohibition to the exercise of that power, by any provision of law, must be confined to the terms of the prohibition. The Court is primarily concerned to see that the prosecution for the offences in cases covered by the prohibition, shall not commence without complying that condition contained therein, such as previous sanction of the competent authority in the case of a public servant and any Page 13 of 18 HC-NIC Page 13 of 18 Created On Wed Feb 15 02:56:56 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/842/2016 CAV JUDGMENT other case with the consent of the party or the party interested for the prosecution or aggrieved by the offence.
20. Therefore, on this ground only the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside, because in the absence of sanction to prosecute against the public servant, learned trial Judge has no power to prosecute against him so far the offence of Prevention of Corruption Act. In so many cases pertaining to the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the various Courts consider the view of acquittal of the accused, who is public servant, in absence of material aspect of sanction from the competent Authority. It the facts of present case, it is an admitted fact that no sanction as envisaged under the provisions of the Act has been obtained. In these circumstances, it was no permissible for the learned trial Judge to take cognizance of the offence under Sections 7, 12, 13(1), (d), 1,2, 3 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Cognizance without prior sanction being expressly barred under Section 19 of the Act.
21. This Court has also perused the decision rendered by this Court and reliance made by the learned advocate Mr. Umesh Trivedi in the cases of Gaurishankar Purshottamdas Joshi (Supra) and Manojbhai Bhagwandas Shah (Supra), wherein this Court has quashed and set aside the order issuing summons against the accused in the absence of sanction to prosecute against the accused. This Court has also perused the decisions in the case of Anil Kumar (Supra) and L. Narayana Swamy (Supra) and both are on the issue of sanction.
22. So far as maintainability of Revision Application, this Page 14 of 18 HC-NIC Page 14 of 18 Created On Wed Feb 15 02:56:56 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/842/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Court also perused Urmila Devi Vs. Yudhvir Singh reported in (2013) 15 Supreme Court Cases 624, more particularly paras 21 to 23, which read as under:
"21. Having regard to the said categorical position stated by this Court in innumerable decisions resting with the decision in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande (supra), as well as the decision in K.K. Patel (supra), it will be in order to state and declare the legal position as under:
21.1 The order issued by the Magistrate deciding to summon an accused in exercise of his power under Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. would be an order of intermediatory or quasi-final in nature and not interlocutory in nature.
21.2 Since the said position viz., such an order is intermediatory order or quasi-final order, the revisionary jurisdiction provided under Section 397, either with the District Court or with the High Court can be worked out by the aggrieved party.
21.3 Such an order of a Magistrate deciding to issue process or summons to an accused in exercise of his power under Section 200 to 204 Cr.P.C., can always be subject matter of challenge under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
22. When we declare the above legal position without any ambiguity, we also wish to draw support to our above conclusion by referring to some of the subsequent decisions. In a recent decision of this Court in Om Kumar Dhankar vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2012) 11 SCC 252, the decisions in Madhu Limaye (supra), V.C. Shukla (supra), K.M. Mathew (supra), Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2006) 1 SCC 557 ending with Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande (supra), was considered and by making specific reference to paragraph 6 of the judgment in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande, this Court has held as under Page 15 of 18 HC-NIC Page 15 of 18 Created On Wed Feb 15 02:56:56 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/842/2016 CAV JUDGMENT in paragraph 10:
"10. In view of the above legal position, we hold, as it must be, that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C., was available to the Respondent No.2 in challenging the order of the Magistrate directing issuance of summons. The first question is answered against the appellant accordingly."
23. Therefore, the position has now come to rest to the effect that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is available to the aggrieved party in challenging the order of the Magistrate, directing issuance of summons. This Court has perused the decision in the case of Urmila Devi (Supra) and it appears that in absence of sanction, public servant cannot be summoned to prosecute against him. No doubt, in the said case, it is observed that the order issued by the Magistrate deciding to issue process or summons to an accused in exercise of his powers under Section 200 to 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can alway be subject matter of challenge under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the present Revision is maintainable in the eye of law as observation in the case cited above.
24. This Court has also perused the case of N.K. Ganguly (Supra) relied upon by Mr. Khan. From the bare perusal of the said decision, it appears that in the said case also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the proceedings of lower Court in absence of previous sanction obtained from the competent Authority and therefore, same is not helpful to the present case. If it is applicable, even though the sanction is must before prosecuting against the public servant.
Page 16 of 18HC-NIC Page 16 of 18 Created On Wed Feb 15 02:56:56 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/842/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
25. This Court also perused the panchnama and it is assumed that during the course of trap, the so-called amount was demanded by said Sachin Patel and accepted by him. But so far as the role on the part of the present applicant is concerned, nothing directly comes out against the present applicant. Though it is a matter of evidence and therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into total merits of the case and during the course of the trial, the trial Court can consider the issue of involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence.
26. In view of the aforesaid position as well as the settled position of law as held in the decisions rendered by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the fact that now at this stage, there is no sanction issued by the competent Authority and there no any departmental process initiated against the applicant, this Court is of the view that cognizance taken by the learned Sessions Judge, without prior sanction so far as the offences pertains to the Prevention of Corruption Act, by way of impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.
27. Hence, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, City Civil Court No.13, Ahmedabad City, in ACB C.R. No.18 of 2004/ACB Summary Case No.2 of 2005 dated 12.9.2016 is hereby quashed and set aside.
28. Present Criminal Revision Application is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Page 17 of 18HC-NIC Page 17 of 18 Created On Wed Feb 15 02:56:56 IST 2017 R/CR.RA/842/2016 CAV JUDGMENT (Z.K.SAIYED, J.) YNVYAS FURTHER ORDER :
After the pronouncement of this judgment and order, learned advocate Mr. Samir Khan requests to stay this order for some period.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as this Court has already dealt with the aspects of maintainability of the application as well as the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore, request for stay is not required to be considered. Request is rejected.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) YNVYAS Page 18 of 18 HC-NIC Page 18 of 18 Created On Wed Feb 15 02:56:56 IST 2017