Important point
Sanction order under Prevention of Corruption Act should speak for itself and in case the facts do not so appear it should be proved by leading evidence that all particulars were placed before sanctioning authority for due application of mind.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947—Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(e) and 6(1)(c)—Prosecution of appellant-accused for having acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income—Special Judge acquitted accused holding that there was no proper sanction—High Court set aside acquittal holding that sanction was valid and matter was remanded—Appeal—When sanction order itself was very expressive, argument that particular material was not properly placed before authority and authority had not applied its mind became unsustainable—Sanction order in the case spoke for itself that incumbent had to account of assets disproportionate to his known source of income—View taken by trial Court was not correct and was rightly set aside.
Held : It is no doubt true that the sanction is necessary for every prosecution of public servant, this safeguard is against the frivolous prosecution against public servant from harassment. But, the sanction should not be taken as a shield to protect corrupt and dishonest public servant. In the present case, a perusal of the sanction order itself shows that Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy’s income from all known sources between the period from May 25, 1964 to June 27, 1986 was Rs. 7,91,534.93 that income was from salary, GPF advances, rental income, interest amount from bank accounts and loan amount received from LIC towards house constructions, the dividend income, interest amount and gain in respect of chits received from Navyodaya Sahakra Bank, Vyyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society, Vishalam Chit Funds and Reliance industries loan received from friends and family members, gain towards sale of scooter/car, sale proceeds of jewellery and income received by family members and the total expenditure incurred by the accused during these period is Rs.2,41,382.85 and the total assets acquired by the accused both movable and immovable from May 25, 1964 to June 27, 1986 is Rs. 9,51,606.66 ps. Therefore, the accused has to account for difference between the two. The sanction itself shows that there is something to be accounted by the accused. When the sanction itself is very expressive, then in that case, the argument that particular material was not properly placed before the sanctioning authority for according sanction and sanctioning authority has not applied its mind becomes unsustainable. When sanction order itself is eloquent enough, then in that case only formal evidence has to be produced by the sanctioning authority or by any other evidence that the sanction was accorded by a competent person with due application of mind. In the present case the learned additional sessions Judge took a very narrow view that all the papers were not placed before the Court to show that there was proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority. The view taken by learned Special Judge was not correct and the learned Single Judge correctly set aside the order. (Para 7)
Therefore, the ratio is sanction order should speak for itself and in case the facts do not so appear, it should be proved by leading evidence that all the particulars were placed before the sanctioning authority for due application of mind. In case the sanction speaks for itself then the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is apparent by reading the order. In the present case, the sanction order speaks for itself that the incumbent has to account for the assets disproportionate to his known source of income. That is contained in the sanction order itself. More so, as pointed out, the sanctioning authority has come in the witness box as witness No.40 and has deposed about his application of mind and after going through the report of the Superintendent of Police, CBI and after discussing the matter with his legal department, he accorded sanction. It is not a case that the sanction is lacking in the present case. The view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge is not correct and the view taken by learned Single Judge of the High Court is justified. (Para 9)

Judgment

A.K. Mathur, J.—Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against an order passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 1998 whereby learned Single Judge by his order dated June 10, 2004 has allowed the appeal of State and set aside the order of the XXI Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI at Bangalore City, whereby he acquitted the appellant accused under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 on the ground of sanction being invalid in CC No. 131/1990 dated 20th March, 1998.

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the accused Sri C.S. Krishnamurthy, Technical Supervisor, Bangalore Telephones, Bangalore was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) alleging that during the period from May 25, 1964 to June 27, 1986 he acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income. On 27th June, 1986 he was in possession of movables and immovable assets worth R. 4,01,454.58 disproportionate to his known source of income and did not give any satisfactory account The CBI, Bangalore City, after completion of the investigation filed charge sheet against the accused. The charges were framed against the accused and prosecution examined 56 witnesses and marked exhibits P-1 to P.124. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused filed the written explanation. However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The learned Special Judge after hearing the parties framed following questions which read as under :-

“1. Whether the sanction order is valid?

2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused being Technician and then Technical Supervisor in Bangalore Telephones, being a public servant during the period from 25.5.1964 to 27.6.1986 acquired assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of income as on 27.6.1986 as the accused was in possession of movables and immovable assets worth Rs. 4,01,454.58 Ps. Which were disproportionate to his known source of income for which he could not give satisfactory account?

3. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, punishable under Section 5(2) of the said Act?

4. What order?”

4. Learned Special Judge acquitted the accused and held that there was no proper sanction. Learned Special Judge held that the prosecution has failed to prove the valid Sanction under Exhibit P-83 and therefore, prosecution is without jurisdiction and he acquitted the accused of all charges. Aggrieved against the order, an appeal was presented by the CBI to the High Court.

5. Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, after examining the evidence came to the conclusion that the sanction accorded by the prosecution is valid and set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge and remitted the matter back to the Special Judge, CBI, Bangalore to register the case and to decide the matter afresh after hearing both the parties. Aggrieved against this order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been preferred by the accused.

6. We heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Whole case depends upon the sanction. Whether the sanction granted by the authority is a valid sanction or not? In order to appreciate this controversy, we reproduce the sanction order which reads as under :-

“SANCTION ORDER

Whereas it is alleged that Shri C.S. Krishnamurthy while functioning as Technician and then as Technical Supervisor, Bangalore Telephones, Bangalore, during the period between 25.5.1964 to 25.6.1986, and, as on 27.6.1986 he was found in possession of assets/properties/pecuniary resources to the tune of Rs. 4,01,454.58 Ps. Wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 514

Important pointSanction order under Prevention of Corruption Act should speak for itself and in case the facts do not so appear it should be proved by leading evidence that all parti­culars were placed before sanctioning authority for due application of mind.

Cases Referred (4)

Important point
Sanction order under Prevention of Corruption Act should speak for itself and in case the facts do not so appear it should be proved by leading evidence that all particulars were placed before sanctioning authority for due application of mind.