http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  681 of 2008

PETITIONER: AJAY KUMAR MISHRA

RESPONDENT: STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/01/2008

BENCH: CJI K.G. BALAKRISHNAN  & R.V. RAVEENDRAN

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NO.681 OF 2008 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO.14474 OF 2006)

               Leave granted.

               The appellant herein was an I.A.S. Officer from Bihar cadre.  On the basis o f a  complaint, an F.I.R. was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and also   under Sections 5(2) read with 5(1)(c)and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on  22.1.1985 in regard to acts done in 1982.  The allegation against him was that he had  sanctioned a loan of Rs.15 lacs in favour of a firm for financial gain and that he had award ed a  contract to an advertisement agency without inviting tenders and caused financial loss while  he  was the Managing Director of a Public Sector Undertaking.  The investigation report dated  21.4.1986 did not show any criminal liability  on the part of the appellant. It was also dec ided  to  

drop the criminal proceedings against the appellant. The sanction was not accorded for  prosecution.  When matters stood thus, nearly 20 years later (17 years after FIR was  registered) on   12.12.2003   the    sanction  was granted.  The appellant challenged the sa me.   The learned Single Judge set aside the sanction holding that it is an old case and further t rial  would be an harassment to the appellant.  The State went in appeal and the Division Bench  held that the order of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside and ordered the authorit ies to  proceed in accordance with law.

               Heard both sides.

               Evidently, the incident had happened in the year 1982-83.  The authorities h ad  examined the case and held that the sanction was not to be granted and after a long period,  the  matter was considered and the sanction was granted.  The learned Single Judge had given vali d  reasons for quashing the sanction.  In view of the long delay and the earlier report that he  was  not responsible, it is not just and proper that the appellant should be prosecuted.  We do n ot  think that the further prosecution of the appellant is necessary since the appellant has alr

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

eady  retired from service.  The Division Bench  ought   not  to have interfered with the order of  the  learned  

Single Judge.   We set aside the order of the Division Bench and uphold the order of the  learned Single Judge.                  The appeal is disposed of accordingly.