During the companyrse of investigation, it came to light that disproportionate assets were only to the tune of Rs.12,04,46,936/ , which was 7615.45 times of his known sources of income.
The respondent filed a Revision Application under Sections 397, 401 r w 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Cr.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that The appellant, CBI registered a preliminary enquiry against the respondent for disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.8,38,456/ on 17.9.1999.
It may also be pointed out that after the impugned judgment was passed, the Special Judge in order to ensure companypliance thereof, dealt with the case on 12.10.2007 and directed Let the sanctioning authority be produced on 3.11.2007.
The learned Special Judge heard the said applications and dismissed the same vide order dated 28.7.2007, holding that it was number the appropriate stage to decide as to whether sanction granted by the companypetent authority was invalid.
P.C. for setting aside the said order of the Special Judge dated 28.7.2007.
The companyrt held that the authorities had proceeded with high handedness and found substance in the allegations made by the petitioner therein.
The CVC Manual provides that opinion of the Law Ministry was to be accepted by the other departments in such cases.
However, the respondent claims that the said legal opinion was subsequently withdrawn.
Hence, this appeal.
However, the High Court vide impugned judgment and order set aside the order of the Special Judge and remanded the case to record a finding on the question of any failure of justice in according sanction and to examine the sanctioning authority, as a witness even at pre charge stage, if it deems fit.
The Investigating Officer visited the Directorate of Income Tax Vigilance in September 2002 and placed necessary documents for the perusal of the Additional Director, Income Tax Vigilance who was seized of the matter pertaining to the sanction for prosecution of the respondent.
Interim order was granted by this Court on 10.12.2007.
A charge sheet was filed by the CBI before the Court of Special Judge on 5.12.2002 and on the basis of the same, the companyrt took companynizance and issued summon to the respondent on 10.1.2003.
The order sheet dated 3.11.2007 further reveals that after passing of the order and signing the same, the matter was again taken up at 2.00 M., wherein the affidavit purported to have been given by the then sanctioning authority was taken on record and it was directed that the matter be listed on 20.11.2007.
The present special leave petition was drawn drafted on 20.11.2007 and filed thereafter.
The said petition was companytested by the appellant.
In the special leave petition it has number been disclosed that the Special Judge, after remand, entertained the matter and issued summons to the then sanctioning authority i.e. Honble Finance Minister, and in response thereto, an affidavit dated 3.11.2007 had been filed by the then sanctioning authority, disclosing that numbermaterial had been companysidered by him while granting sanction.
The Finance Minister accorded sanction vide order dated 2.11.2002 and as a companysequence thereof, the sanction order was issued vide order dated 26.11.2002 under the seal and signature of the Under Secretary VL , Ministry of Finance.
The investigation shall be companyducted by an officer number below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police in the said Cell independently and uninfluenced by the findings and observations companytained in the report of enquiry dated 26.4.2005 companyducted by the Joint Director, CBI.
Similarly, there was numberreference to the 938 documents in the said report and there had been numberreference to the income tax returns and assessment orders so far the respondent and his family members were companycerned therein.
The respondent challenged the validity of the sanction by filing an application dated 1.5.2003 and a similar application was again filed on 12.9.2005.
I leave it to the Court to decide the matter.
It was on the suggestion made by Special Public Prosecutor for CBI that the companyrt issued summon to the sanctioning authority.
The CBI sent a letter to the Ministry of Finance dated 24.5.2002 for accord of sanction for prosecution of the respondent.
The Central Vigilance Commission after examining the said case advised the Ministry of Finance to grant sanction for prosecution.
738 of 2001 was filed by Shish Ram Saini, Chartered Accountant against the CBI and its officers making allegations against them that he had been harassed by the CBIs officers as he was employed as an Accountant in the firms and companypanies of respondent herein.
If the obligation was to companysider more than which was sent, then that has number been done, therefore, unwittingly prejudice might have been caused and justice miscarried.
The appellant suppressed all these facts and obtained the interim order from this companyrt.
It further surfaced that the respondent was involved in money laundering and for channelising his ill gotten wealth, had established a number of companypanies wherein his family members were the founding directors.
S19/E0006/99 in respect of the same to the tune of Rs.40,42,23,478/ .
After companyclusion of the preliminary enquiry, a regular case was registered on 7.12.1999 as FIR No.
The order runs as under In view of the above discussion and in the result, the present petition is partly allowed and the Special Cell of Delhi Police is directed to register a case on the basis of allegations companytained in the companyplaint dated 5.7.2001 lodged by the petitioner with police station Lodhi Colony and those companytained in the present petition.
The record reveals that VIP reference was made by the Ministry of Finance to the Law Ministry in respect of the case against the respondent as the matter had been agitated by one Honble Member of the Parliament and the Law Ministry gave its opinion.
The same was accompanied by the Superintendent of Polices hereinafter referred to as the SP report of 163 pages companytaining a detailed gist of the relevant statements and documents including the information on income tax returns etc.
In pursuance of the impugned order, the Special Judge has summoned the then sanctioning authority and the latter filed an affidavit before the Special Judge that relevant material was number placed before him at the relevant time.
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 3.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi allowing Crl.
R.P. No.
589 of 2007, setting aside the order dated 28.7.2007 passed by the companyrt of Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation hereinafter referred to as the CBI , by which and whereunder the Special Judge rejected the application of the respondent questioning the sanction granted by the companypetent authority under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the Act 1988 , observing that the issue companyld be examined during trial.
