Dismissed

Satendra Kumar Das Alias Satyendra Kumar Das v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance

Jharkhand HC4 Dec 2019Cr.Rev./1165/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the rejection of a discharge application in a corruption case. The petitioner claimed cognizance was taken without prior sanction, but the court found sanction was granted two weeks before the taking of cognizance, validating the proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Satendra Kumar Das Alias Satyendra Kumar Das Vs The State Of… — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 1165 of 2017

¶3

Satendra Kumar Das @ Satyendra Kumar Das … Petitioner Versus … … State of Jharkhand through Vigilance Opp. Party

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶5

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. T.N. Verma, Advocate

¶6

14/04.12.2019

¶7

Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶8

Heard Mr. T.N. Verma, counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party.

¶9

This revision has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶10

“ For quashing the order dated 03.07.2017 passed in Vigilance Case No. 15 of 2016, corresponding to Vigilance P.S. Case No. 13 of 2016, whereby the learned Special Judge, A.C.B. at Hazaribagh, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge, wherein the petitioner has been made an accused under Section 7/13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, presently pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance court at Hazaribagh.”

¶11

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case the only point of law which is involved is that sanction for prosecution has been received vide memo no. 472 dated 10.05.2016 and in the present case charge sheet dated 07.04.2016 was submitted on 08.04.2016 and thus cognizance for alleged offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was immediately taken without prior sanction order. Learned counsel refers to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and submits that as per the provisions of Section 19, no court shall take cognizance of the offence under the said Act without previous sanction of the

¶12

competent authority. He accordingly submits that entire proceeding against the petitioner is vitiated. The learned counsel submits that this point is being raised on the basis of the sanction order annexed with the counter affidavit. He submits that although this point does not appear to have been taken before the learned court below and such point has also not been taken in the main petition but this being a point of law can certainly be taken while arguing the case. However he fairly stated that order taking cognizance has not been filed in this case.

¶13

5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party opposes the prayer and submits that as per the status report received from the learned court below, the date or order taking cognizance is 22.06.2016 which is after the sanction order. He submits that although the final form was submitted but the cognizance was taken subsequently i.e after receipt of sanction.

¶14

6. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the status report received from the learned court below, this court finds that sanction for prosecution was granted on 10.05.2016 and cognizance has been taken on 22.06.2016. Accordingly, only the point which has been argued by the petitioner that cognizance has been taken without prior sanction, has no merits. This court has gone through the impugned order whereby discharge petition of the petitioner has been rejected by a well-reasoned order taking into consideration that the petitioner was caught red handed with the bribe money. The impugned order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, present petition is hereby dismissed.

¶15

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶16

Binit/

Satendra Kumar Das Alias Satyendra Kumar Das v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Satendra Kumar Das Alias Satyendra Kumar Das v. The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhuneshwar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nityanand Paul Alias Nityananda Paul Vs The Union Of India Through C B I

Mister Alias Chottu Korwa Alias Shivji Korwa Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jawed Akhtar Vs State of Jharkhand through Indo Shekhar Chaturvedi

Suresh Bouri And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ramjee Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand