Balbhadra Parashar v. State Of M.P And Others

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition against the grant of sanction to prosecute the petitioner.

3. The petitioner was working as Manager of the Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society, Village Pipraua, District Gwalior. The allegation against him is that he had secured more income than his earnings. A case for commission of offence under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner. After investigation, it was found that the petitioner had secured assets and property of Rs. 1,05,44,604/- from his known sources of income. The competent authority after perusing the allegation and record, issued sanction to prosecute the petitioner under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Copy of the sanction has been filed as Annexure P/4 and P/5.

4. We have perused the record and evidence against the petitioner and the sanction order. In our opinion, there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner prima facie in regard to the offence of having property and assets more than his known sources of income. The charge has already been framed against the petitioner. Against the aforesaid framing of charge, petitioner filed a Writ Petition, that was dismissed.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the sanction to prosecute the petitioner is not in accordance with law. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the following judgments:-

(i) CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal - AIR 2014 SC 827

(ii) P.L Tiwari v. State of M.P - 2014 (2) JLJ 122

6. We have perused the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and facts and evidence on record of the case. In our opinion, the sanctioning authority has considered all the facts of the case. There is prima facie evidence against the petitioner in regard to acquiring property and assets in excess to his known source of income. In granting sanction to prosecute under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is not necessary for the authority to pass a detailed reasoned judgment and order. The authority has to apply its mind. Even otherwise, there is sufficient evidence prima facie to prosecute the petitioner.

7. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed.