9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 11th January, 2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi in a writ proceeding registered as W.P. (C) No. 578 of 2010 by which the Order dated 21st October, 2009 granting sanction for prosecution of the Respondent No. 1 - Ashok Kumar Aswal has been interfered with by the High Court. Aggrieved, the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as "the CBI") and Union of India have filed the present appeal. 3. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties. 4. The facts that would be required to be noticed lie within a short compass and may be enumerated as hereunder. As far back as in the year 2004 the CBI had registered RC No. BA/1/2004/A0031 on the complaint of one Khalik Chataiwala against one Rajeev Agarwal, Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was no sanction accorded for his prosecution. 7. Subsequently, the matter concerning sanction for prosecution of the Respondent No. 1 was taken up and eventually sanction was accorded in the File by the Finance Minister on 8th August, 2009 on the basis of which a formal order granting sanction was issued on 12th August, 2009. It also appears that on 14th September, 2009 a Corrigendum was issued to effect certain corrections in the sanction order dated 12th August, 2009 whereafter another sanction order (revised sanction) was issued on 21st October, 2009. It also appears that in the letter of the concerned Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, commu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be corrected were mere typographical errors in the Sanction Order dated 12th August, 2009. The said corrigendum did not introduce any variation or modification of the terms of the grant of sanction by the order in the File dated 8th August, 2009 and the formal order dated 12th August, 2009. Learned Additional Solicitor General has also contended that on the basis of the records placed it clearly transpires that at no point of time earlier than 8th August, 2009 sanction was refused so as to lend support to the contention advanced on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 that there was any review of the decision not to grant sanction. 10. Learned Additional Solicitor General has further submitted that the present is a case where sanction has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 21st October, 2009 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India forwarding the sanction order dated 21st October, 2009 to the Appellant it is mentioned that the earlier Sanction Order dated 12th August, 2009 and Corrigendum thereof dated 14th September, 2009 have been superseded. It is, therefore, contended that both the Corrigendum dated 14th September, 2009 and Sanction Order dated 21st October, 2009 are non-est in law. Finally, learned Counsel has submitted that enormous prejudice will be caused to the Respondent No. 1 if the prosecution on the basis of an ex facie invalid sanction is allowed to continue. The interference made by the High Court, therefore, is appropriate. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffect on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 We have also looked into the relevant part of the original record with regard to the corrigendum issued and on a careful study of the contents of the said corrigendum and the context in which it has been made what we find therefrom is that the corrigendum dated 14th September, 2009 does not in any way affect the terms or conditions of the grant of sanction as made by the Finance Minister in the File on 8th August, 2009 on the basis of which the formal order dated 12th August, 2009 came to be issued. 13. In fact, all that the corrigendum does is to split up the alleged "reduced" demand of bribe into two separate amounts of ` 25 lakhs each instead of a lump-sum amount of ` 50 lakhs as mentioned in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in a proceeding Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.
14. On the view that we have taken we have to hold that the High Court was not at all justified in passing the impugned order and in interfering with the sanction order dated 21st October, 2009. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court; allow this appeal and direct that the trial against the Respondent No. 1 - Ashok Kumar Aswal will now proceed in accordance with law. As the offences alleged are of the year 2004, we direct that the learned trial Court will initiate and complete the trial within an outer limit of 12 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appeal is allowed as indicated above. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
