ORDER R.P. (Crl.) No. 1623-1624/2002 in Crl. A. No. 214-215/2002
1. By order dated February 11, 2002 Criminal Appeals No. 214-215/2002 were disposed of by this Court on the ground that Secretary (Vigilance), who had granted sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was conferred with such powers only on 23.4.1994, that is to Say after he had passed orders of sanction. This Court, therefore, observed that on the relevant date Secretary (Vigilance) had no jurisdiction to sanction prosecution and in view of the non-compliance of Section 19(1) of the Act there was an embargo on Court's powers to take cognizance of the matter. A Review Petition has been filed relying upon Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to indicate that no finding or sentence passed shall be reversed on the ground of absence or any error, omission or irregularities in the sanction required under Sub-section (1) unless in the opinion of the Court there is failure of justice.
2. However, our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the opposite party P.A. Mohan Das, to the averment made in the Review Petition itself to the following effect:
"As the Commissioner and Secretary, Transport Department refused to issue order of sanction for prosecuting the petitioner, Commissioner and Secretary Vigilance Department passed an order of sanction for prosecuting the accused."
3. He further points out that a note of this fact was also taken by the Trial Court, a mention of which finds place in Para 27 of the Judgment of the Trial Court. That being the position, namely, the sanction for prosecution having once been refused by Secretary (Transport) it may be difficult to accept the argument that sanction for prosecution by the Secretary (Vigilance) without conferment of such power was a mere irregularity as in our view there was no occasion to consider the question again by another officer who was even not authorised, on the relevant date, to consider the matter of granting sanction. Earlier refusal to grant sanction brings about entirely a different situation. Looking to all facts and circumstances indicated above we do not find any reason to recall or review our order as ultimately it would not result in any change in the decision of the case.
4. For the above reasons, we decline to interfere in the Review Petitions, which are accordingly dismissed.
Crl. M.P. No. 2091/2003 in R.P. (Crl.) No. 1580/2002 in Crl. A. No. 503/2002
5. R.P. (Crl.) No. 1580/2002 in Crl. A. No. 503/2002 having once earlier been rejected on 17.12.2002, we see no good ground to entertain this petition. Crl. M.P. No. 2091/2003 in R.P. (Crl.) No. 1580/2002 in Crl. A. No. 503/2002 is dismissed, more particularly in view of Order 14 of Rule 5 of Supreme Court Rules.
6. We decline to entertain this application, it is accordingly dismissed. We, however, make it clear that the question raised regarding Sub-section (3) of Section 19 remains open for consideration.