1 2025:CGHC:41409 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.400 of 2010 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P. S. Chakarbhata, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus Mukesh Saxena S/o Late Shri J. P. Saxena Aged About 51 Years R/o District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/State : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent(s) : Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate appears along with Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 18/08/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 04.08.2004, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.18/1996, whereby, the respondent has been discharged with regard to the offence punishable under Sections SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.08.18 17:37:14 +0530 2 409, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC, read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2) According to the prosecution, a Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-37) was lodged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Bilaspur on 15.05.1986, alleging therein that the Executive Engineer, namely, A. C. Sodhi and G. S. Verma, the Sub Engineer of the Irrigation Department, Bilaspur, have constructed a tank, known as “Pakariya Tank”, without issuing a notice for tender and, the respondent, who was working as Divisional Accountant in the office of the Irrigation Department, Division Bilaspur, was implicated for the commission of the alleged crime, as according to the prosecution, he was involved in the alleged conspiracy. 3) At the outset, it appears that the respondent, who was working as a Divisional Accountant in the Office of Irrigation Department, Division Bilaspur, was an employee of the Central Government, and no sanction for his prosecution was given either by the Accountant General or any of the higher authority of the Central Government and, the sanction for prosecution (Ex.P-43) placed on record was, in fact, issued by the State Government on 24.09.1996. Since, he was not an employee of the State Government, therefore, the entire trial conducted against him, cannot be held to be conducted validly for want of proper sanction and, in view thereof, we do not find any substance in this appeal, so as to call for any interference in the judgment under appeal. 3 4) The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/-SD/D (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane