Chandan S/O Tulsiram Jibhakate vs State Of Mah., Thr. Pso Ps Sadar ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 917 Bom

                                                                                       1
                                                                         CRIWP804.19.odt

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                      NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 804 OF 2019
                              Chandan Tulsiram Jibhkate
                                              vrs.
                             State of Maharashtra and ors
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of                        Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
                 Shri R.R.Vyas, Advocate for Petitioner
                 Ms. T. Khan APP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
                 Shri U.M.Aurangabadkar, ASGI for Respondent No.3


                         CORAM :- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                  AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATED :- 14.01.2021

Heard Shri Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner.

This petition starts with and is founded upon the order, which the petitioner says is the order whereby the permission to prosecute the petitioner for the offence punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act has been refused by the competent authority. The petition then proceeds to contend that when there exists an order refusing to grant sanction, there cannot be passed another order subsequently granting sanction, as this is not permissible in law in view of the judgment rendered in case of State of Himachal Pradesh vrs. Nishant Sareen, reported in (2010) 14 SCC

The law laid down in the said case of Nishant

CRIWP804.19.odt

Sareen is that, after refusing to grant sanction, ordinarily another order granting sanction to prosecute cannot be passed unless the competent Authority is satisfied from the fresh material that such prosecution is necessary.

When the first order, which according to the petitioner, is an order of refusing sanction has not been filed on record and it is also not seen by the petitioner, it would not be open for the petitioner to contend that the subsequent order is not based upon the fresh material. Thus, the very foundation of this petition is absent and therefore, we have our own doubts if this petition would be maintainable at law.

Shri Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time of the Court to make further submissions in the matter.

S.O. to two weeks.

                    JUDGE                             JUDGE


Rvjalit                                                       Digitally
                                                              signed by
                                                   Rajesh     Rajesh Jalit
                                                              Date:
                                                   Jalit      2021.01.14
                                                              18:01:49
                                                              +0530