During investigation, the appellant gave details of his income and expenses, on the basis of which the IO companycluded that the appellant was in possession of Rs.
50,600.
After four years of investigation, the IO submitted a proposal for granting sanction for prosecution of the appellant for which a letter was sent to the Secretary, PH Engineering Department, Patna through the Vigilance Department on 6.1.1992.
The Department of PHED as well as the Law Depart ment, after the scrutiny of the allegations made against the appellant, arrived at the companyclusion that the case companyld number be proved in the companyrt.
2001 Supp 4 SCR 157 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SETHI, J. Leave granted.
It appears that one Smt.
The file was also sent to the Chief Minister through Chief Secretary.
The petition, filed by the appellant, was dismissed vide the order impugned on the ground that mere delay in granting the sanction has number prejudiced the appellant in any manner particularly when he is already on anticipatory bail.
They further companycluded that the grant of sanction would prove to be a futile attempt on the part of the Department, The Advocate General of the State also opined that numbercase for sanction was made out on the basis of the material companylected during the investigation of the case registered against the appellant.
years, the respondent State had number granted the sanction which amounted to the violation of his right of life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
50,600 as unaccountable money.
Usha Punindre Narayan Sinha, filed a FIR in the Vigilance Thana, Division and District, Patna, alleging that the appellant while holding different posts during the years 1961 62 to 1982 83 acquired dispro portionate assets by misusing his official position and adopting companyrupt means.
As numberprosecution was launched against the appellant till the year 2000, he moved the High Court for quashing the proceed ings and his prayer was rejected vide the order impugned.
The FIR was sought to be quashed mainly on the ground that despite expiry of over 12.
The appellant who, at the relevant time, was an Executive Engineer, Public Engineering Department, Mechanical Division, Ranchi, has prayed for quashing of the FIR registered on 20.5.1988 against him under Sections 5 2 read with Section 5 1 e of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 wherein it was alleged that the appellant was in possession of disproportionate assets to the extent of Rs.
