JUDGMENT
P.K. Deb, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 20-9-1997 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 1 of 1989 whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for discharge from the criminal case has been rejected.
2. On the basis of the First Information Report that the petitioner has got disproportionate assets to the known source of income, the abovementioned case was lodged and the C.W.I, made the investigation and then submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner was also proceeded in a departmental proceeding by his employer M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. On various items, it could be found that the petitioner had disproportionate assets than the known sources of income and on all those items investigation was done and then charge-sheet was submitted.
3. The petitioner came up before this Court on earlier occasion also in Cr. Misc. No. 3102 of 1995 (R) for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings but Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K. Chattopadhyaya allowed the petitioner to withdraw the same with an observation that if the submissions are made before the Court below the same should be considered by him and pass reasoned order. The petitioner then filed a petition for discharge but the same was not being heard and then petitioner again came up before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 4498 of 1997 (R) and this Court by an order dated 5.8.1997 directed the Court below to dispose of the petition filed for and on behalf of the petitioner for discharge and to pass necessary order in accordance with law. Accordingly, as per direction of this Court, the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad heard the petition and then passed impugned order rejecting the application, hence this petition.
4. At the very outset, objection was raised that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as by the impugned order petition for discharge has been rejected and order has been passed for framing of charge which is definitely a revisable one.
5. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner concede to that position but submitted that the other points were also involved in the case which may make the petitioner immuned from the criminal charge and the prosecution thereof and hence this petition may be considered under Section 482 Cr.P.C. also.
On merit, submission of Mr. Banerjee is that the petitioners is entitled for discharge as on the same very allegation the petitioner was proceeded in a departmental proceedings and the Presiding Officer in the departmental proceeding was an officer of the C.S.I. itself and when in that departmental proceeding vide order dated 26.8.1996 the petitioner has been exonerated then there remains no scope for proceeding with the criminal case on the same very charges. In support of his contention, Mr. Banerjee has referred to a decision as reported in 1996 (2) East Cr. Cases 337 (S.C.) P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar. According to Mr. Banerjee, the present case is fully covered by the said judgment of the Apex Court. In that case also, there was charge of corruption against the accused and he was proceeded on the same charges in a departmental proceeding and it was held that when standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings then when the departmental proceeding fails then there is futile attempt to proceed or continue with the prosecution on identical charges.
6. But, the papers supplied in the present case do not show that there were identical charges in the departmental proceedings. In the departmental proceedings charge was against the petitioner that he had failed to report in Form No. IV to the competent authority of his department regarding the transaction concerning immovable property owned in the name of his children for a value of more than Rs. 10,000/-. But, in the criminal case there are more charges regarding purchase of land in Kankarbagh, Patna and also in other parts at Patna, house at Patna at Kadamkuan, Fixed deposit, PPF and other as sets like balance in the bank account and all those were found to be disproportionate to the known sources of income of the petitioner which amounted to Rs. 7,54,800/- in total. The departmental proceedings might be to some extent similar to one of the charge but criminal case is having more charges then the departmental proceedings. Departmental proceedings related to non-submission or non disclosure of one item of properties in Form No. IV which were required to be submitted by an employee to his employer. When identical charges are not there then the question does not arise of non proceeding or continuation of criminal case when the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental proceedings.
7. The next point raised is with regard to sanction. According to Mr. Banerjee from the wordings of the sanction and the charge-sheet submitted by the C.B.I., it can be found that the sanction is word to word same with the charge-sheet submitted and thus it can be very well inferred that there was no application of mind by the sanctioning authority and. it was only a mechanical one which the Supreme Court and various other Courts had always depricated. According to Mr. Banerjee, it appears that the charge-sheet was only placed before the sanctioning authority and by just immitating that charge-sheet the sanctioning authority had put his signature without application of mind and there is nothing in the sanction order that all documents were placed before him.
In support of his contention, Mr. Banerjee has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court as , Mansukh Lal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, wherein it was held that the sanction implies application of mind and although it is an administrative action but proper appreciation of the documents placed before the sanctioning authority must be proved and if from the sanction order it could be found that there was definitely lack of application of mind then that sanction is bad in the eye of law.
8. Validity of sanction would, therefore, depends upon the materials placed before the sanctioning authority and this can only be found out as to whether materials have been placed before the sanctioning authority or not at the time of trial alone. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court was considered on the basis of the evidence and the conviction arrived at. But, in the present case the matter is at the prematured stage. There is already a sanction order and there is no scope at this stage to infer that the documents were not placed before the sanctioning authority in passing the sanction order. Only because there is similarity in the language of the charge-sheet and the sanction order it cannot be held at this prematured stage that there is lack of application of mind by the sanctioning authority or that the documents were not placed before the sanctioning authority before according sanction. So, this submission on behalf of the petitioner have got no force. The learned Court below has gone deep into the factual aspect and merit of the case and then on materials on record he found that there was sufficient materials to go in for trial against the petitioner.
9. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, appearing for and on behalf of the C.B.I. has taker objection by filing a supplementary counter affidavit to the effect that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that he had moved before the Calcutta High Court also and got a restraint order regarding proceeding of the investigation behind back of the C.B.I. and after being moved by C.B.I. the said restraint order was vacated and on appeal being preferred before a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court the petitioner had lost. Suppression of those facts, according to Mr. P.P.N. Roy is sufficient to throw out this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. On going through the orders passed by the Calcutta High Court, it could be found that this petitioner had moved before the Hon’ble High Court in the writ jurisdiction against the departmental proceedings against him and there was a restraint order regarding coercive steps being taken against the petitioner on the basis of that departmental proceedings. But, there was no restraint order regarding the criminal case. However, the C.B.I. perhaps misconceived the order and stopped the investigation and then moved the Calcutta High Court for intervention which was accordingly allowed and the restraint order was then vacated. Before the Division Bench again an appeal was preferred that too after the period of limitation and practically on limitation ground the appeal was rejected, but on merit also there was observation by the Division Bench.
11. Mr. Banerjee has argued that there is no suppression in this petition. The Calcutta High Court matter had no nexus with the criminal proceedings and C.B.I. has misconceived regarding the proceedings in the Calcutta High Court. Calcutta High Court matter totally pivoted around the departmental proceeding alone and not the criminal case and that departmental proceedings has now been ended in exoneration of the petitioner. Hence that matter, if not stated cannot be said to be a suppression before this Court.
12. Mr. P.P.N. Roy on the point of sanction has submitted various judgments of the Supreme Court, namely Major Som Nath v. Union of India and Anr. which held that although it is desirable that the facts of the case should be stated and referred in the sanction order itself but nontheless for their non-mentioning in the sanction order cannot be ipso facto be void and if the evidence is adduced that all documents were placed before the sanctioning authority and that he has applied his judicial mind then sanction order can be held to be valid.
In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Apex Court held that facts on which proposed prosecution is based must be proved to have been put before the sanctioning authority. According to Mr. P.P.N. Roy that stage has not come and at the time of trial the validity of the sanction can very well be considered by the trial Court, if the evidence lacks in that respect.
13. I have already mentioned that the submissions made on the basis of exoneration of departmental proceedings is not available to the petitioner as the charges were not identical and on the sanction point, there is no possibility of interference with the impugned order as the prosecution has got every scope to suffice the sanction order by adducing evidence and putting materials at the time of trial and as such this stage being a prematured one for consideration of sanction this Court should not interfere under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
Hence, I do not find any force in this petition and the same is rejected.