Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Thereafter, for the second time the CVC has approached the department with an advice to accord prosecution sanction and simultaneously initiate major penalty proceedings against the applicant on the ground that earlier the case was examined without a report of voice spectrography test. The result of forensic voice examination report relating to the applicant and the complainant, submitted by the DIG CBI vide their letter dated 18.1.2010 was not available at the time of joint meeting held on 2.12.2009. The previous examination, therefore, was done in absence of this vital piece of evidence. The CVC has observed that the forensic examination has confirmed the voices of the applicant (accused ) and complainant in the conversation held prior to trap in which demand of money and negotiation of bribe amount was made. This provide adequate evidence for demand of bribe.

7. The Director of CVC vide memo dated 14.5.2010 intimated the CVO that the voice spectrography report dated 7.1.2000 was not considered earlier. The voice spectrography report confirmed the voices of applicant and Ramkrishna Patidar, the complainant of the case in conversation held prior to trap providing adequate evidence of demand of bribe and as demand itself was an offence, the Director, CVC, New Delhi advised CVO, DOT, New Delhi to accord prosecution sanction and also to initiate major penalty proceedings against the applicant. The competent authority i.e., Ministry of Communication and I.T. Department of Telecommunications after considering the matter in the light of the voice spectrography report has reiterated its decision for not taking any action against the applicant and refused to grant sanction to prosecute the applicant. The relevant part of the Office Memorandum dated 14.7.2010 reads as under :-

"The undersigned is directed to refer CVC's OM No.009/P&T/158/86628 dated 14.5.2010 on the subject cited above. The revised advice of the CVC for launching of prosecution and initiating major penalty proceedings against Sh. Pradeep Singh Jadon was placed before the competent authority i.e., the President along with the complete facts and records of the case.
2. The competent authority has once again considered the related records, evidences, the original advice of CVC dated 3.2.2010 and the revised advice dated 14.5.2010, tendered in the light of the voice spectrography report (VSR). The competent authority has observed that while the VSR only indicate about probability of the voice of the accused in the conversation dated 11.2.2009, there is doubt on the other aspects of the trap. The CVC in their OM dated 14.5.2010 have also cast doubt on the trap proceedings.

19. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the order of refusal dated 24.2.2010 and submitted that sanction to prosecute the applicant was rejected by the competent authority not only at first occasion on 24.2.2010, but also it was rejected on second occasion on 14.7.2010 and at the time of second occasion all the documents and material were placed before the CVC as well as before the competent authority, which include voice spectrography report. He submits that office memo dated 14.7.2010 clearly establishes that the competent authority considered the voice spectrography report along with other related matter in totality and refused to grant the sanction to prosecute the applicant. The sanction for prosecution was granted on the third occasion on 19.4.2011 under extraneous influence, on the basis of very same material/evidence on which it was refused earlier on 14.7.2010. He further pointed out that after second refusal of sanction dated 14.7.2010, no fresh material/evidence was placed before the sanction authority, the sanction authority was not having any jurisdiction to review its earlier order dated 14.7.2010 and grant sanction on the same material. He submits that review or reconsideration of the sanction for prosecution by the sanctioning authority on the same material is impermissible. He also pointed out that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the order dated 16.8.2013 passed by this court in its correct perspective and has proceeded to deviate from the main issue and erroneously sought refuge in the judgment of Apex Court in the Debendra Nath Padhi's case. He further contended that by order dated 17.1.2014, the sanction file was summoned by the learned Special Judge and as per sanction order dated 14.7.2010 and 19.4.2011, there was no dispute that the voice spectrography report was considered while granting refusal on 14.7.2010. Thereafter, the sanction authority in absence of any additional evidence reviewed the earlier order, which is impermissible in law. He lastly submits that after passing of the order dated 14.7.2010, the sanctioning authority has become 'functus officio'. The sanctioning authority has no power to review its earlier order on the same material. The sanction is 'void ab initio' and prayed that the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C be allowed and the impugned order dated 5.9.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Indore in Special CBI Case No.6/2013, be set aside and applicant be discharged.