APL 883.16.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] NO.883 OF 2016
Madan Akant Matey,
Aged about 53 years,
Occupation-Service,
R/o. Pratap Nagar,
Nagpur. .. APPLICANT
.. VERSUS ..
State of Maharashtra,
Through Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Anti Corruption Bureau,
Bhandara. .. NON-APPLICANT
..........
Shri Anjan De, Advocate for Applicant,
Shri R.S. Nayak, APP for Non-Applicant.
..........
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 15, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : B.R. GAVAI, J.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
2] By way of present application, applicant has approached this court for quashing and setting aside the charge-sheet filed by non-applicant in Crime No.3221/2012 ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:54:47 ::: APL 883.16.odt 2 on 10.10.2012 being Criminal Case No.13/2016. 3] The charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4] The perusal of the final report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Investigating Agency itself would reveal that the State Government, vide communication dated 20.8.2014, had refused to grant sanction for proceeding against the present applicant for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It would further reveal that the Investigating Agency had approached the State Government again for reconsidering the decision and for granting sanction to file the charge-sheet. However, the State Government, by giving elaborate reasons as to why the charge-sheet should not have filed, rejected the request of the Investigating Agency and again reiterated its decision not to grant sanction vide order dated 3.3.2016.
5] Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act prohibits cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:54:47 ::: APL 883.16.odt 3 committed by a public servant without the previous sanction of the Competent Authority in the present case the State Government.
6] The Apex Court in the case of Nanjappa .vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2015) 14 SCC 186 has held that in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, there is a specific bar under Section 19 and without valid consent, the Competent Court cannot take cognizance. 7] In that view of the matter, we find that the present application deserves to be allowed on the aforesaid short ground. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i).
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) .........
Gulande, PA ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:54:47 :::