Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by reasoned order dated 15.04.2010 the competent authority found no justification to grant sanction, as required under law for prosecuting the petitioner. But upon disagreement by Gujarat Vigilance Commission, as per communication dated 27.09.2010, earlier decision was reviewed and sanction was given on 27.10.2010 by the competent authority viz. District Development Officer, Kheda, District Panchayat, Nadiad to prosecute the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. That discharge application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by learned 4th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge Kheda at Nadiad by order dated 21.12.2011.
In the above backdrop of the facts, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen [2010 JX (SC) 637]. In the above case also, the Vigilance Department of the State had disagreed with the findings recorded by the competent authority and sanctioned prosecution and finally the Apex Court held that there was non-application of mind by the competent authority for grant of sanction of prosecution of the respondent therein in absence of any fresh material or evidence. The facts are almost identical in this case and accordingly it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Anr. v. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti [2010 CRI.L.J.1436] in support of his submissions.
In view of the above, issue notice returnable on 8th February, 2012.
In the meanwhile, ad-interim relief in terms of para 12(iv) is granted.
Direct service is permitted.
[Anant S. Dave, J.] *pvv Top