Appellant, thereafter filed an application for discharge before the trial companyrt which dismissed the same by order dated 9th June, 2004 inter alia on the ground that the appellant having retired from service, prior sanction is number necessary.
The charge sheet was laid before the Special Judge Vig. ,
Notwithstanding the aforesaid refusal of the Government, the Vigilance Department on 10th September, 1998 filed charge sheet against the appellant under Section 5 2 read with Section 5 1 e of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 alleging acquisition of disproportionate assets of Rs.1.44.234.78 between 1st January, 1980 and 31st December, 1985.
The appellant superannuated from service on 30th June, 1997.
It led to registration of a first information report against the appellant.
at the time of the framing of the charge.
The State Government by its letter dated 31st July, 1998 wrote back to the Vigilance Department and declined to grant sanction for prosecution, as in its opinion there was numberprima facie case against the appellant and the assets held by him were number disproportionate to the known sources of his income.
Bhubneshwar who by its order dated 2nd August, 1999 took companynizance of the aforesaid offence and issued number bailable warrant against the appellant.
The State Government by its letter dated 13th May, 1997, declined to grant sanction and advised that the proposal for prosecuting the appellant be dropped.
As the appellant was removable from service by the State Government, the Vigilance Department sought its sanction for prosecution of the appellant.
It seems that even after the retirement of the appellant, the Vigilance Department wrote on 25th of March, 1998 for reconsideration of the earlier order refusing the sanction for prosecution of the appellant.
During the investigation, it was found that the appellant possessed disproportionate assets of Rs.5,58,752.40.
The officers of the Vigilance Department searched his house after obtaining a search warrant from the Court, on 17th March, 1992.
CHANDRAMAULI KR.
Appellant challenged the aforesaid order before the High Court which by the impugned order rejected the challenge and while doing so observed as follows On a companyspectus of the facts and circumstances involved in the case and the position of law in the matter of sanction vis vis the impugned order, this Court does number find any illegality in that order so as to invoke the inherent power with a view to quash the impugned order.
PRASAD, J. Bereft of unnecessary details the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant, a member of the Orissa Administrative Service, at the relevant time was serving as a Deputy Secretary to the Government of Orissa in the Irrigation Department.
Appellant, aggrieved by the above order taking Cognizance of offence and issuance of the number bailable warrant of arrest, filed petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the aforesaid order inter alia on the ground that his prosecution without sanction of the State Government is bad in law but the High Court by its Order dated 22nd September, 2003 disposed of the application with liberty to the appellant to raise this companytention before Special Judge Vig.
