Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The 5th respondent was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluq Police Station in August, 1998. It is the case of the petitioner that the 5th respondent has been constantly demanding bribe from the petitioner and used to destroy the bottles in the shops whenever his demands were not complied with. The petitioner states that he has been running three wine shops within the jurisdiction of the Ongole Taluq Police Station. It is stated that during the 2nd week of August, 1998, the 5th respondent had directed one of the workers of the petitioner to inform the petitioner to meet him. The petitioner met the 5th respondent on 17-8-1998 and it is alleged that the 5th respondent demanded Rs. 10,000/- for not booking any cases in respect of the wine shops owned by the petitioner. It is further alleged that the 5th respondent had warned the petitioner of dire consequences in case the amount is not paid. It was in this context that the petitioner claims to have complained the matter to the 3rd respondent, viz., the Director General of Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB). A trap was arranged by the ACB. On 28-8-1998, the petitioner went to the residence of the 5th respondent at 9.30 a.m. and handed over the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to him. The 5th respondent received the same. In the meanwhile, the ACB officials rushed in. When the hands of the 5th respondent were washed with the SC solution, the solution turned out to be pink. The trap, therefore, proved successful.

10. Sri K. Laxmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the ACB had laid a trap against the 5th respondent and that the same proved to be successful. When the matter was placed before the 2nd respondent by the ACB together with the relevant records for grant of permission, the Government took the various aspects of the matter into account and accorded permission under G.O.Ms.No. 333, dated 23-10-1999 after elaborately discussing the case. He submits that the only representation submitted by the 5th respondent was the one in February, 1999 and the permission was accorded after considering the said representation. According to him, there were no subsequent representations or developments after the grant of permission and that there is no provision in the Act enabling the Government to withdraw the sanction once accorded under Section 19 of the Act. It is his case that the provisions of the Central and State General Clauses Acts do not apply to such cases. He sums up by stating that neither there is power vested with the Government to withdraw the sanction accorded by it nor there exist circumstances and reasons for withdrawing the permission.

14. The learned counsel for the parties have relied upon several judgments in support of their respective contentions.

15. It is a matter of record that the ACB had laid trap against the 5th respondent and had launched prosecution against him for various offences under the Act. It is also a matter of record that the Government had accorded permission as required under Section 19(1) of the Act and that the Charge-Sheet also filed by the ACB before the trial Court. The permission accorded by it was withdrawn by the State Government through the impugned order. It is assailed on several grounds, which are referred to above. On the basis of these contentions, the following questions arise for consideration :

23. The 2nd aspect is as to whether there existed any basis for issuance of the impugned order. Any discussion on this aspect presupposes the existence of power on the Government to issue such a notification. No further discussion is necessary in view of the findings on the 1st aspect. However, even assuming that such a power existed with the State Government, if needs to be seen that the trap was laid on 24-8-1998 and the ACB had submitted its report to the State Government after complying with the preliminary requirements for launching prosecution. It was at this stage that the 5th respondent had submitted a detailed representation in February, 1999. G.O.Ms.No. 333 was issued on 23-10-1999 i.e., about 8 months subsequent to the date of representation. There should exist proper grounds and reason for the State Government to reconsider its decision. Reference is made in the impugned order only to the representation of the 5th respondent dated (in February 1999) 0-2-1999, report of the Director General of ACB dated 11-6-1999 and G.O.Ms.No.333 dated 23-10-1999. There is no reference to any other proceedings or representations. A reading of the impugned order, particularly, Para 2, discloses that the basis for the Government to issue this order is the representation made by the 5th respondent in February, 1999. Para 2 of the impugned order reads as under :