The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an interlocutory order where the trial court refused to produce sanction documents, relying on cross-examination rights and precedents on maintainability of revisions.
The criminal revision was dismissed as it was against an interlocutory order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 482 of 2019
Order reserved on : 20.08.2019 Order delivered on : 20.11.2019
----Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
For Petitioner : Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Adv. For Respondent : Shri B. Gopa Kumar, A.S.G.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
C A V ORDER
20/11/2019
2
3
trial Court has completely ignored this aspect of the matter and rejected the application without recording any reason whatsoever. He also submits that in this case sanction has been granted in routine manner, which does not disclose the material having been considered before passing such order. The purpose of moving the application for production of the document is based on the fact that the PW/1 has tried to evade the question of non-consideration of the material at the time of grant of sanction. It is next submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to consider that the sanctioning authority was provided the draft sanction order which has been confronted at the time of cross-examination and marked as Ex.D-1, it is most absurd that the prosecution agency who is required to seek a sanction before prosecuting a government servant, has itself proposed the sanction order which ought to be signed by the sanctioning authority, whereas under the law, a duty has been enjoined upon the sanctioning authority to apply its mind and balance the public interest on the one hand and protection available to the accused on the other hand. He also submits that the Court below has wrongly rejected the application only on the ground that the Court has to see the documents relied upon by the prosecution only. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court's order dated 19.07.2017 passed in CRR No. 704/2017 (Mahaveer Chandrakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh), 04. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent
4
supporting the impugned order and submitted that the trial Court has not committed any illegality while passing the impugned order. He also submits that the accused has every right to confront them during cross examination and thereby the order of the Court below is without any fault.
5
applicant in the matter of Mahaveer (supra) is of no help to him being distinguishable on the facts.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE
vijay
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed any illegality in rejecting the applicant's application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of sanction documents.
Whether a criminal revision is maintainable against an interlocutory order of the trial court.
Whether the cited order in Mahaveer Chandrakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh was applicable to distinguish the facts of the present case.
S. Rudra Murty
Union of India
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
