Madan Akant Matey vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 744 Bom

 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

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

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