TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 1094
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which has vitiated the entire proceedings qua the petitioner. On merits also, the quashment is sought for. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25-26.09.2011, a team of WCL officials comprising of the officers of WCL vigilance, Production and Surveyors conducted a surprise check at four mines of Ghorawari sub-area colliery of Coal India Limited (CIL) and its subsidiary Western Coalfields Limited (WCL). It was found that during the period from April 2010 to August 2011, the accused persons caused wrongful loss to the CIL/WCL to the tune of Rs. 11,91,19,950/- approx either by showing despatch of inflated quantity or by supplying downgrade coal. It was found that the accused persons dishonestly removed a large quantity of higher grade coal and mixed shale, stone and other impurities to equalize the quantity of higher grade coal and thereby caused extensive grade slippage, which ultimately resulted in the aforesaid financial loss to the CIL/WCL. 3. It was found that the accused persons showed a supply of 2,09,497 MT quantity of B & C grade coal from 01.04.2010 to 31.08.2011 to the power generation plants, while such quantity was not even available at the railway siding. On 01.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtage/defalcation of coal and in the charge-sheet, which was presented on 29.11.2013, based on material collected during the investigation, he (Ajit Singh Sodha) along with another officer Devendra Kumar Choudhary was also arrayed as an accused. 7. The CBI requested the competent authority i.e. Chairman, CIL, Kolkata to grant sanction for prosecuting the accused persons and the same was granted vide order dated 07.11.2013. 8. The SP, CBI/ACB, Jabalpur filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons including the petitioner before the Special Judge, CBI, Jabalpur. A Special Case No.6/2013 was registered. The learned Judge, vide order dated 23.04.2014, framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B, 409 and 477 A of IPC and proceeded for trial. It appears from the record that most of the material prosecution witnesses as many as 15 in numbers have been examined and the trial is in a very advanced stage. 9. Be it noted that the petitioner being aggrieved by the order framing charges dated 23.04.2015 passed by the Special Judge, CBI Jabalpur in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there was total non-application of mind and non-appreciation of the material on record. 14. It is submitted that the sanction order passed by the Sanctioning Authority for prosecuting the petitioner itself shows that it is bad in law as it has been passed mechanically, without application of mind and without properly evaluating the material placed before the Sanctioning Authority along with charge-sheet by the CBI. The Sanctioning Authority has simply reproduced the facts mentioned in the final report by the Investigating Officer. It did not consider the uncontroverted fact that the petitioner was transferred about one and a half year back from the date on which surprise stock measured by the vigilance team. He was posted there only for two months from April to May 2011 and on the date of handing over the charge, on account of both quality and quantity, the stock of coal was proper. During the period of posting of the petitioner, the overall sales realisation i.e. the profit to the Company was more than Rs.65 Lakhs, which was more than the assessed realization for the said mine. Therefore, no loss was caused to the Company. It is further argued that the coal was weighed at Neem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the production and supply of coal, for maintenance of the stock and records and was having control over the mine and the railway siding. He deliberately did not properly maintain the records. His role came into light during the investigation; therefore, he was impleaded in the charge sheet. 21. Regarding the check period, it is submitted that the period of alleged defalcation has been determined as the check period, therefore, suspicion expressed by the petitioner has no relevance. The names of the accused persons have been determined after the analysis of evidence emerged during the course of the investigation, therefore, non-mentioning of name of the petitioner in the FIR also has no adverse impact on the case of the prosecution. 22. It is also submitted that exoneration in a departmental inquiry does not bear any effect on the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the CBI report was sent to the sanctioning authority along with all the material relied upon. It reflects from the sanction order itself that the Sanctioning Authority has considered all the material/evidence submitted before it and on due application of mind, has granted the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt in Parkash Singh Badal (supra), the challenge to which can always be raised in the course of trial." 28. The Apex Court continues to follow this legal proposition in Ashok Kumar Agrawal's case (supra) relied upon by the petitioner himself, and said that: "59. Undoubtedly, the stage of examining the validity of sanction is during the trial and we do not propose to say that the validity should be examined during the stage of inquiry or at the pre-trial stage." 29. In the case of State of M.P. vs Krishna Chandra Saksena (1996) 11 SCC 439, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also said that: "8. ..... Now the question whether all the relevant evidence which would have tilted the balance in favour of the accused if it was considered by the sanctioning authority before granting sanction and which was actually left out of consideration could be examined only at the stage of trial when the sanctioning authority comes forward as a prosecution witness to support the sanction order if challenged during the trial. As that stage was not reached the prosecution could not have been quashed at the very inception on the supposition that all relevant documents were not consider....