9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e charge that he demanded and accepted illegal gratification from one Mr. M. Channaiah - the complainant, an Attorney of M/s. Tirumala Services in order to show favour for settlement of wages, bills/arrears, certification of pending bills and to show favour in the day-to- day affairs concerning the said contractor. It was further alleged that the respondent, on various occasions, demanded and accepted from the complainant a sum of ₹ 3,68,000/- as illegal gratification/reward for showing favour to the complainant in exercise of his official functions concerning the said contract. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, an investigation was conducted. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed under Sections 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so filed a sanction order dated 2.1.95 issued under the signatures of the Company Secretary. In the said sanction order itself, it is noticed in paragraph 1 that the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Company is the appointing authority of the respondent. It is also noticed in paragraph 2 of the said sanction order that under the Goa Shipyard Officer's Conduct, Disciplines and Appeal Rules, 1979 (hereinafter `the Rules'), the services of the respondent could be terminated after obtaining the approval of the Board of Directors/Company. In paragraph 3 of the said sanction order it is noticed that the sanction required under Section 19 of the Act was granted. It is undisputed that the sanction for prosecution of the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... man and Managing Director, the same has not referred to any resolution of the Board of Directors passed in this regard pursuant to which the Chairman and Managing Director issued sanction order. Section 19 of the Act of 1988 reads: 19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction, - (a) (b) .. (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office. The Goa Shipyard Officer's Conduct, Disciplines and Appeal Rules 1979 provide that the authority competent to appoint and to remove the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice; (c) no Court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no Court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. Referring to the aforesaid provisions, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the Court should not, in appeal, reverse or alter any finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge on the ground of the absence of any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction as stated in clauses (a), (b) and (c). As already noticed, the sanction order is not a mere irregularity, error or omission. The first sanction order dated 2.1.95 was issued by an authority that was not a competent authority to have issued such order under the Rules. The second sanction order dated 7.9.97 was also issued by an authority, which was not competent to issue the same under the relevant rules, apart from the fact that the same was issued retrospectively w.e.f. 14.9.94, which is bad. The cognizance was taken by the Special Judge on 29.5.95. Therefore, when the Special Judge took cognizance on 29.5.95, there was no sanction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
