Anand Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 197 Chatt

                                         1

                                                                            NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        Criminal Revision No.33 of 2023
    Anand Pandey, Aged about 53 years, S/o Shri A.P. Pandey, posted as
     Assisant Project Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission (S.S.A.)
     Bilaspur, R/o House No.110, Jabadapara Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur,
     Chhattisgarh
                                                          ---- Applicant
                               Versus

    State Of Chhattisgarh through Police Station-Economic Offences
     Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, Distt.Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                   ---- Respondent

For Applicant              Mr.Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate
For Respondent /State      Ms Priyamvada Singh, Dy.G.A.

                SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
                              Order On Board

11/1/2023

1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated

01.10.2022 passed by the Special Judge (PC Act), Bilaspur, in Special

Session Case (PC Act) No.2/2022, whereby the application preferred by

the applicant under Section 227 of the CrPC read with Section 19 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018 (hereinafter

called as 'PC Act') has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was posted as Assistant

Project Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission (S.S.A.), Bilaspur. On

the basis of preliminary enquiry, FIR for disproportionate assets bearing

Crime No.34/2016 for offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section

13(2) of the PC Act was registered against him and during the

investigation, the prosecuting agency has obtained sanction vide order

dated 18.7.2018 (Annexure P-2). From perusal of sanction order, it

appears that total income was ascertained to the tune of

Rs.3,66,85,562/- and expenditure for the check period was determined

to the tune of Rs.9,11,93,537/-, thereby disproportionate assets was

accumulated by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.5,45,07,975/-, which is

148.58% in excess and disproportionate to the income. So, the

applicant has filed writ petition bearing WPCR No.138 of 2018, in which

by order dated 24.7.2018 this Court directed respondents No.3 and 4

therein to consider on the explanation given by the applicant in Form

No.1, 2 & 3 and to also consider on any other representation to be made

by him in future by allowing him to make additional submission or to

produce additional documents. Upon such direction, the prosecuting

agency / Anti Corruption Bureau has re-investigated the matter and

found income to the tune of Rs.10,63,49,856/- and expenses for the

check period to the tune of Rs.15,67,04,698/-, thereby disproportionate

assets was accumulated by the petitioner to the tune of

Rs.5,03,54,842/-. After reinvestigation the matter was again referred to

sanctioning authority and sanctioning authority vide order dated

15.12.2021 (Annexure P-4) stated that as the principle of law laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the applicant was found in excess of

more than 10% of disproportionate assets for the check period i.e.

47.43% and as earlier sanction order has already been issued on

18.7.2018, so no fresh sanction is needed and accordingly, such

communication was made to the prosecuting agency.

3. Mr.Ashutosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, would submit

that under Section 19 of the PC Act the investigating agency has put-

forth the amount and other details after reinvestigation before the

sanctioning authority. In spite of such request, the sanctioning authority

has not granted fresh sanction. Therefore, there is no valid sanction for

the charges for offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2)

of the PC Act. So, he prays to set aside the impugned order and direct

the concerned Court to allow the application filed by the applicant

under Section 227 of the CrPC. He placed reliance in the matters of

Nanzappa v. State of Karnataka reported in 2015 ACR 717, Mohmad

Iqbal Ahmad v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1979 (SC) 677

and Dilip Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh and others [W.P.(CR)

No.355/2017.

4. Per contra, Ms Priyamvada Singh, learned Deputy Government Advocate

appearing for the respondent/State, would support the impugned order

and submit that after reinvestigation, the prosecuting agency has

placed the entire material before sanctioning authority and sanctioning

authority after reconsidering all the materials given permission to

continue the prosecution on the basis of earlier sanction order and also

mentioned that the applicant has found disproportionate assets for the

check period to the tune of 47.34%. So, there is no justification to

reconsider the earlier order.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents

annexed with revision.

6. It is explicit that the learned trial Court has taken into consideration the

figures which have been obtained in reinvestigation and

disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.5,03,54,842/- was

accumulated by the petitioner during the check period for which

charges have been framed and sanctioning authority has also issued the

earlier sanction order on 18.7.2018 and as per direction given by this

Court in WPCR No.138/2018 vide order dated 24.7.2018, fresh and

revised material were again placed before the sanctioning authority for

reconsideration and after reconsideration of such materials, the

sanctioning authority has issued the letter on 15.12.2021 as the

applicant has found in excess of income to the tune of 47.34%. Upon

such reconsideration, the sanctioning authority has not recalled the

earlier order and directed the prosecution agency to continue the

prosecution.

7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Rajmohan v. State

Represented by the Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai, Tamil

Nadu reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1377 has held that consequence

of non-compliance of mandatory requirement of sanction shall not be a

ground for quashing of criminal proceeding.

8. In the instant case, the sanctioning authority has properly reconsidered

the fresh materials obtained during the investigation and the learned

trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in rejecting the

application filed by the applicant under Section 227 of the CrPC read

with Section 19 of the PC Act. So, this Court is of the view the judgment

relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is of no help to him and

distinguishable to the facts of the present case.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court do not find any merit in

this criminal revision. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is

liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge B/-